UFOs

and Government
A Historical Inquiry

Michael Swords
Robert Powell
Clas Svahn
Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos
Bill Chalker
Barry Greenwood
Richard Thieme
Jan Aldrich
Steve Purcell


This book is dedicated to Loren Gross in appreciation for his long years of
collegial friendship and his valuable historical contributions to UFO research.
 Foreword
Those of us who have devoted an alarming portion of our lives to the reading of
UFO literature know how awful much of it is. Those whose intellectual curiosity
further encompasses mainstream history and science often find themselves
wincing at the way UFO writers—not excluding, by the way, many who present
themselves as skeptics—have of drawing big conclusions from little evidence.
Not surprisingly, the results range from the amateurish and implausible to the
paranoid and conspiratorial, and end up being of little more than anthropological
interest.
Still, let us be fair. One need not be crazy to wonder at the disconnect between
deeply puzzling UFO sightings and oddly apathetic official responses. From the
earliest days of the UFO controversy, outside observers—and some inside ones
—could only surmise that a presumably alert U.S. government tasked to protect
the nation's safety must be secretly in the know. Could it really be as little
alarmed as it appeared about mysterious sights and events that were sparking
speculation, even by some scientists, about visitation from elsewhere?
It wasn't as if the phenomena were no more than, say, ambiguous light sources
glimpsed by individuals possessed of excessive imagination and dubious probity.
Countless sober witnesses spoke of what to all appearances were structured craft,
observed under decent viewing conditions (sometimes at close range) and
displaying performance characteristics of a sort that ought to have given anyone
concerned with aviation security a bracing case of the chills. And worse, fresh
sightings of such things were being recorded daily. Some came from
instrumented trackings, others from multiple and independent witnesses on the
ground, in the air, or both. How reasonable was it to believe that everybody must
be radically—and curiously consistently—mistaken?
The first English-language books on UFOlogy, which saw print in 1950, took
as their themes (1) the reality of visitors from space and (2) the strong likelihood
that the American government kept that reality hidden behind a high wall of
classification. One book, Donald Keyhoe's The Flying Saucers Are Real, held
that the Air Force drew its conclusions from sightings by its own pilots and from
believable civilian observers. The other, Frank Scully's Behind the Flying
Saucers, put forth a more fantastic allegation, that the military had recovered
alien wreckage and bodies.
A number who embraced (1) rejected (2), but both views would prove durable.
If Scully's story collapsed after a famous True expose in 1952, crashed-disc
rumors would persist on UFOlogy's fringes into the late 1970s and the revival of
interest in the now-celebrated Roswell, New Mexico, incident of July 1947.
Since then, a mass of crash/retrieval tales has circulated and captured the popular
imagination. Long dismissed as an absurd fabrication, even Scully's yarn
concerning a crash with dead humanoids at Aztec, New Mexico, is now back up
for discussion in some quarters.
If aspects of Roswell-related testimony (as painstakingly collected by civilian
field investigators over the past three decades) seem intriguing, albeit yet
unproved, and the belated official explanations remain less than persuasive, one
cannot say as much of comparable claims which have gone nowhere. Today,
UFOlogy's more cautious proponents spurn them, though these stories—along
with suspect related documents alleged to be of official provenance—still wind
up the impressionable even as they try the patience of the rest of us.
Quite aside from limitations of evidence, the problem with the notion of
recovered discs is one most thoughtful analysts find insurmountable. If the U.S.
government had access to a highly advanced otherworldly technology from
reverse-engineered spacecraft, yes, it could keep that a secret. It is indeed true,
an often-heard lazy contrary argument notwithstanding, that some secrets are
successfully kept over extended periods of time. One can reasonably argue,
moreover, that if the assorted rumors and testimonies are in any way true, the
secrets haven't been kept.
The problem, however, is that no such episode could have occurred outside
history. Decades of concealment cannot hide the consequences—technological,
political, military, diplomatic, and other— of the intrusion into the normal course
of human events of radically disruptive knowledge that abruptly pushes science
forward by decades or centuries. At the least, applications of that suddenly
acquired explosive information would show up everywhere from new weapons
and transportation systems to computers to household appliances. Yet the history
of technology demonstrates a deliberate, linear, step-by-step progression of
knowledge and application. It does not require, in other words, the injection of
what amounts to otherworldly magic into the process.
Reading the cover-up literature, one notices how little many of the writers
know about how history works and why history after the end of World War II,
when the UFO phenomenon entered popular consciousness, happened as it did—
pretty much, in short, as if no one had ever reported an unidentified flying
object. Not only do UFOs have no visible part of that history, they are
unnecessary to it. That is an interesting story in itself. How could something of
such potential official (and other) consequence have been pushed so far to the
official (and other) margin?
In what is sure to be an enduring work of historical UFO inquiry, UFOs and
Government tackles this question using the tools of the scholar: thorough
documentation, scrupulous analysis, and speculation tethered tightly to the
recoverable record. The authors can't resolve every issue, naturally. Grand cover-
up theories aside, secrets and classification are genuine concerns and authentic
barriers to historical understanding. So is the loss of documents by design,
carelessness, apathy, or routine disposal. Where contemporary documents are
unavailable, we are dependent upon the fallible memories of humans.
Nonetheless, the evidence points overwhelmingly, at least in the case of
American officialdom, to something less like UFOs vs. conspiratorial plotters
than like UFOs vs. bungling bureaucrats. In my reading of the often frustrating,
depressing, and infuriating mishandling of what future historians may judge the
most vital scientific question of the 20th Century, one is initially tempted to
think of category errors and to charge the Air Force, the Condon Committee, and
others of falling victim to Type 2—the sort that has the investigator thinking that
nothing interesting is going on while in fact something is.
Sad to say, from all we can infer, the reasoning (to the extent that reasoning
ever impinged on dismissive impulses) never rose to the level of that kind of
intellectual error. Perhaps that was because so little actual investigation was
pursued. In its recounting of dramatically anomalous sightings, this book makes
mordantly clear what wasn't being explained all the while. With a few scattered,
honorable exceptions in which genuine curiosity was expressed and real study
urged (and, on rarer occasion, practiced), even the most intriguing UFO reports
seldom got more than the bum's rush out of the building. The subject would be
left to the few individual scientists who dared to identify themselves with the
Great Taboo and to lay UFOlogists forced to operate with no resources to speak
of.
On the American side of this official history, heroes, if not entirely
nonexistent, are hard to come by. The non-ignoble comprise some of the early
Sign personnel, those University of Colorado project members who dared
challenge the bullying, execrable Edward Condon, and—at least at their best
moments, but not, alas, all of their moments—Capt. Edward Ruppelt and
astronomer/Blue Book consultant J. Allen Hynek. (Ironically, in their later years
the first would openly reject UFOs while the second would resolutely champion
them.) The villains, those who quashed the work that needed to be done, are
many. Robertson, Menzel, and Condon, though, will live on in particular infamy.
The reader will come to know them and others all too well in the pages that
follow.
While UFOs and Government revisits an often unhappy history, the reading of
it is far from an unhappy experience. The authors, eloquent, intelligent,
sophisticated, and conscientious, provide us with the first credible,
comprehensive overview of official UFO history in many years, superseding
such notable earlier works as Edward Ruppelt's The Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects, David Jacobs's The UFO Controversy in America, and Larry
Fawcett and Barry J. Greenwood's Clear Intent. Most of the current volume (and
thus most of the commentary above) deals with U.S. military and intelligence
responses to the UFO phenomenon, but it also features richly informative
chapters that expand the story across the international arena. If you're looking for
an example of a nation that dealt productively with the UFO reports that came its
official way, you will take heart in the chapter on the French projects.
From here on, every responsible treatment of UFOs and government will have
to cite UFOs and Government prominently among its sources. New facts about
old issues will inevitably emerge, of course, and one day no doubt a revised and
expanded edition will be possible and necessary. In the meantime, however, this
is the real story as accurately as it can be reconstructed in the second decade of
the new century. I expect to keep my copy close at hand and to return to it often.
While it cannot be said of many books, UFO-themed or otherwise, this is among
the essential ones. Stray from it at your peril.
Jerome Clark
Minnesota
February 2012

 Preface
This book is a work of history. It describes the ways that human beings handled
the UFO mystery. In this, it is unlike the vast majority of other writings about
UFOs that focus upon claims and the phenomenology. This book’s focus is,
rather, on the way major governments dealt with the mystery and the problems
that it gave them. The sources of our information are the governments and their
military and intelligence organizations themselves. The story that emerges from
those formal documents is surprising and fascinating, and needs to be told.
Although the book’s theme centers upon the responses and policy decisions of
the intelligence communities, there must be significant space given to key UFO
incidents, as they are what initiated the government reactions. In all these
“encounters,” the book will base its descriptions upon primary documents, just
as it does each of its remarks about governmental actions, policies, and even
internal debates. A serious attempt has been made to place all information in a
solid scholarly context with well-cited descriptions of the exact source materials
used.
The book is heavily U.S.-focused, though not entirely so. This is for many
reasons. Rightly or wrongly, many countries took their lead on how to respond to
the UFO phenomenon from the United States, and, in particular, the U.S. Air
Force. Whether it was clearly true or not, the expression of the UFO
phenomenon seemed to center more so upon the United States than in other
countries, particularly in its early post-World War II days. Despite the awareness
that many intelligence community documents have either been lost or are still to
be released, those currently available to the scholarly community are mainly
from U.S. sources as well. Thankfully those available resources, plus
outstanding sources from other countries, form a fertile and powerful base upon
which to build the book, and hopefully many others to come.
The formation of this project was accidental but perhaps inevitable. Robert
Powell, the Research Director of the Mutual UFO Network, had the idea that the
subject of UFOs needed some serious scholarly writing; perhaps a few “essays”
or "white papers,” making clear the stand of colleagues who had researched this
subject in depth. He persuaded his board of directors to fund travel expenses for
six persons to meet and talk about such a project. For that catalysis, all of us in
what came to be known by ourselves as the UFO History Group are grateful.
From that meeting, and over four years of consistent work, came the History
Group team and this book. Everyone has contributed, whether by writing
chapters or notes, massive editing or small, reference finding and illustrations,
and the constant patient lead of Robert Powell bringing it together.
This book, as you will read, is primarily chronological. It chooses its
beginning in World War II with the “foo fighter” phenomenon, and follows the
U.S. path up through the Colorado Project era and, in a piecemeal fashion,
beyond. This is not merely to be conventional. It is a decision based upon
available documentation. Without such documentation the writing would be
merely speculative. After the “U.S. Chronology” chapters are complete, the book
shifts focus to several non-U.S. governmental responses to the phenomenon. The
very best UFOlogist-scholars were asked to write the Spanish, Australian, and
Swedish chapters, and we should all be thankful for their contributions. Because
of available documentation (and latent interest), shorter pieces on other
governments’ involvement have been added. The similarities and differences in
their dealings with the phenomenon are fascinating. This is particularly true of
the French program, based within their space agency. In contrast, the Canadian
and British governments' reactions to the UFO phenomenon were quite similar
to—and closely linked with— that of the United States. Their story does not
provide a unique perspective of dealing with the phenomenon and is therefore
not covered in this work.
This was not an easy book to create. That is perhaps why someone has not
already done so. Dr.
David Jacobs’s The UFO Controversy in America has stood for 35 years as the
only really serious scholarly history. Dr. Thomas E. Bullard’s recent The Myth
and Mystery of UFOs is an intellectual tour-de-force, if not precisely a history.
Jerome Clark’s The UFO Encyclopedia is a rich mine of historical articles
written in encyclopedia style. Persons actually wishing to know something about
the field of study, rather than merely be entertained by it, should read these
books. But the one non governmental resource that made this history possible
was Loren Gross. An indefatigable chronicler of information, Gross privately
published over many years, a year-by-year, date-by-date, listing of UFO facts,
news, documents—all referenced. It was a heroic effort. It made the gleaning
and bringing together of many disparate social, cultural, and phenomenological
threads come about in a richer, more illuminated way. This book could not have
been written without his labor. And it is to him that it is dedicated.
Michael Swords, writing for the UFO History Group
Kalamazoo, Michigan December
 2010

 Prologue
This is not the typical book on “UFOs.” There are no discourses regarding aliens
or detailed personal accounts of “UFO” encounters. There are no arguments on
whether extraterrestrial civilizations have or have not visited Earth. Nor will
there be conclusions drawn as to the origin or cause of “UFOs.” This is a
historical treatise of a subject that has been maligned by the deniers of the theory
of extraterrestrial visitations, as well as those who refuse to consider the merits
of serious investigations into this phenomenon. It is a subject where simply the
utterance of the word “UFO” brings up thoughts of little green men; where
witnesses are ashamed to admit to have seen an unidentified object in the sky,
less they be considered irrational and untrustworthy; and where, unfortunately,
few have treated it with the historical merit that it is due.
It is appropriate to define some key terminology used in this book to describe
this phenomenon. The term “UFO phenomenon” represents a unique experience
in human history related not to any single event, but to a continuous string of
historical human observations of unidentified flying objects that to the observer
are not explainable within his or her knowledge and experience. The original
term “U.F.O.” means exactly that—an unidentified flying object. It means
nothing more and nothing less. The newer definition of UFO will be reflected in
quotes and refers to the unfortunate association and misuse of the term to signify
an alien spaceship.
For the entirety of our existence, we humans have been experiencing things
that seem mysterious to us. Some of these things seem to fly about in the air.
Some of them, even many years or centuries, ago, may have been the same
phenomena that we today call UFOs. But due to the blurring that comes with
centuries of time, and due to the relative paucity of resources and research in
those olden times, it is difficult to say with any assurance that the aerial
mysteries of the 19th century and earlier were similar to those we experience
today. In this book we will consider events for which we have a great deal of
documentation, and consequently, a great deal of assurance for their validity.
Whether or not one believes in the existence of these unexplained UFO
phenomena, they are a real part of human history. This book concerns the
“modem” UFO phenomenon and how government has reacted to that
phenomenon. This phenomenon is documented by thousands of pages of
government releases and thousands more of formal witness testimonies. That
mountain of documentation began during World War Two, and that is where we
begin.
UFOs and Government
 Chapter 1: World War II and the Immediate Post-
War Era

During World War Two, in both the European and Pacific theatres-of-war, allied
pilots began encountering aerial phenomena that they could not explain. Given
the circumstances, it was natural and prudent to assume that these phenomena
could be enemy technology.
What were they seeing? There are dozens of known reports and surely not all
of them were of the same phenomenon. Some pilots seem to be making
understandable human errors, perhaps even firing at the stars or other (friendly)
planes or true enemy technology, like balloons. But the bulk of these reports tell
a different story. When these reports are read as a group, the anomalous aerial
phenomenon appears like this: Balls or spheres of light, sometimes seeming
transparent or even metallic. Usually a nocturnal phenomenon. Appearing
sometimes as a solitary object, but often in pairs. Colors varying across the
spectrum, but mainly in the yellow-to-red. Seeming to pace planes, off wing tips
or forward or back. Often changing relative positions within the same incident.
Despite the consternation they cause, there is no concrete activity indicative of
hostility towards planes. Often making erratic flight maneuvers, leaving the area
in a variety of directions, including straight up, or simply switch off or disappear.
Like any recurrent phenomenon, they received nicknames: “kraut fireballs” and
“foo fighters.” Although this phenomenon became a military concern in the
European and Asian theatres of war, scattered reports occurred more widely,
geographically, as subsequent research has shown. These and other reports
following the war indicated that Axis personnel in Eastern Europe had also
encountered the phenomenon.1
Post-war conversations with veteran pilots have determined that foo-fighter-
like encounters occurred throughout the war, but they only became common in
late 1944 and 1945. Due to patient and meticulous work by UFO historians
Barry Greenwood and Lawrence Fawcett, the first official military records of foo
fighter incidents were uncovered in 1992. These records consist of very brief
excerpts from mission reports, required of each flight commander upon returning
to base. They were entered in the Unit History of the 415th Night Fighter
Squadron (in the European Theatre), and began appearing in late 1944. The
comments which follow are quoted to give the reader a flavor of the variety of
ways the pilots felt that they were encountering the phenomenon. These records
are available in the National Archives, in College Park, Maryland.2
Another outstanding instance occurred in October. While flying an intruder
mission in the Rhine Valley, Capt. Edward Schlueter and Lt. Don Myers
experienced contact with the first foo fighters, referred to as such by Lt. Myers
for the lack of a better name and because of the eerie feeling it gave the crew. At
first these two officers were taunted by their buddies and began to wonder if they
had developed combat fatigue. However, other crews began to report seeing foo
fighters in the Rhine Valley at night, thus the foo fighters were definitely
established as an existing phenomena.
November 27, 1944. A weird excerpt comes from Lt. Schlueter's report of an
intruder mission:
Upon returning to base saw a red light flying through area about 35 miles
ENE of Pt. A. Came in to about 2000 feet off starboard and then it
disappeared in a long red streak.

December 15, 1944. An excerpt from the Operations Report:
Saw a brilliant red light at 2000 feet going E at 200 MPH in the vicinity of
Ernstein. Due to Al [Air Intercept radar] failure could not pick up contact
but followed it by sight until it went out. Could not get close enough to
identify object before it went out.

December 22 and 23, 1944.
Mission 1 - 1705-1850 Put on bogie by Blunder at 1750 hours, had A.I.
contact 4 miles range at Q-7372. Overshot and could not pick up contact
again. A.I. went out and weather started closing in so returned to base.
Observed 2 lights, one of which seemed to be going on and off at Q-2411.

December 23, 1944.
More Foo-Fighters were in the air last night. The Ops report says: 'In
vicinity of Hagenau saw 2 lights coming toward A/C from ground. After
reaching the altitude of the A/C they leveled off and flew on tail of Beau
 [Beaufighter—their aircraft, Ed.] for 2 minutes and then peeled up and
turned away. 8th mission—sighted 2 orange lights. One light sighted at
10,000 feet the other climbed until it disappeared.

December 28, 1944. The Ops Report says:
1st patrol saw 2 sets of 3 red and white lights. One appeared on port side,
the other on starboard at 1000 to 2000 feet to rear and closing in. Beau
peeled off and lights went out. Nothing on GCI scope at the time." And
then again: "Observed lights suspended in air, moving slowly in no
general direction and then disappeared. Lights were orange, and appeared
singly and in pairs. These lights were observed 4 or 5 times throughout the
period.

Instances of foo fighters continued into the year 1945. January 30, 1945.
Foo-Fighters were at it again last night. This is the operations report:
"Halfway between Wissenbourg and Langau sighted amber lights at 2000
feet. One light was 20 to 50 feet above the other and of about 30 seconds
duration. Lights were about a foot in diameter, 1000 feet away and
following Beaus. Lights disappeared when Beaus turned into them.

February 13 and 14, 1945.
Mission 2 - 1800-2000 - About 1910, between Rastatt and Bishwiller,
encountered lights at 3000 feet, two sets of them, turned into them, one set
went out and the other went straight up 2-3000 feet, then went out. Turned
back to base and looked back and saw lights in their original position
again.

February 14 and 15, 1945.
Mission 2 - 1940-2140 - String of lights north of Freiburg, (1 red one in
center, 4 white ones on each side) blinking on and off.

March 26 and 27, 1945.
Mission 5 - 2230-0130 - Patrol. Patrol Worms area. Saw an orange ball
 that came up from ground and disappeared before it reached the Beau.

April 23 and 24, 1945.
1945: Mission 5 - 0105-0320 - P-61 Patrol - Wisenburg-Ludwigsburg
Area. At Rhine River, R-9593, observed 4 lights arranged in a square.
Lights went out as plane approached.

Despite the Spartan brevity of the extracts above, they serve two useful
purposes: they end the discussion as to whether U.S. pilots were seeing and
reporting anomalous light “bogies” during World War Two, and the excerpts
nicely lay a foundation of credibility for the multitude of post-war interview
reports made by pilots, which offer much more detail.
Pilots were reporting anomalous bogies.3 What was the government’s reaction
to these sightings? Of course there was concern that some of these incidents
constituted evidence of German or Japanese technology. There was a common
enough theme in the reports of apparent interest in our planes (pacing, buzzing,
monitoring?) to make this an obvious issue of military security. Did the military
do anything about it? The answers are: “we don’t know” and “yes.”
The “we don’t know” answer applies to the possibility that the U.S. military
created some sort of focus person, desk, or even a project to collect specific
reports and attempt some form of analysis (an “Estimate”) to determine what
they were dealing with. Such a project or collection point may have existed
within the U.S. or Allied military structure, but we do not have the documents to
prove it.
The “yes” answer applies to the fact that certain individuals were asked to
look into these reports and do what they could to find out as much as they could
about them. UFO historians have long known that prominent scientists H.P.
Robertson of Caltech and Luis Alvarez of California Berkeley were involved.4
But the extent of whatever they did is not known. We know a great deal more
about a third physicist, David Griggs, ultimately of UCLA, who was
acknowledged by Robertson and Alvarez to have been closer to the problem.
David Tressel Griggs was born in Columbus, Ohio, in 1911 and educated at Ohio
State and Harvard in geophysics. When World War II began, he was one of the
legions of bright young scientists drafted into the MIT Radiation Laboratory,
primarily tasked to work on radar science and technology. His immediate
contribution was to the application of radar to ground-based anti-aircraft fire. At
the time Edward Bowles, MIT expert in microwave radar, was chief scientific
consultant for Secretary of War Henry Stimson. He needed a sharp, young radar
expert to learn and advise on action right at the European front. Griggs was also
an amateur pilot of some skill, so he was the man chosen.5
Griggs reported to Bowles's office at the Pentagon in 1942 and shortly
thereafter headed overseas. He worked under Army Air Force General Henry
(Hap) Arnold's authority, and rotated through the commands of Generals Elwood
(Pete) Quesada, Jimmy Doolittle, and Carl Spaatz. He was a hands-on guy,
flying both training and combat missions, and got the respect of the military
personnel with whom he worked. He spent most of the war in the European
Theatre, and, after “Victory in Japan” day, was transferred to the Pacific Theatre
to aid in the exploitation of Japanese scientific and technological assets.
Griggs, therefore, was in a perfect position to pick up anomalous air-encounter
stories, which the flyboys thought would be of interest to a scientific expert who
was also a pilot. But his information gathering was not just an accident of his
being in the right place to hear stories about encounters with foo fighters.
When it became known to the UFO research community that David Griggs
had been asked to collect information on foo fighters during the war, he was
contacted (in 1969) by fellow physicist, James McDonald, and asked about this.
It is from McDonald's interview that we get a little more light on the military
interest in these things.6
Griggs was quite friendly and open. McDonald's notes from the conversation
include these comments:
Every place he'd go, these things showed up. Gen. Arnold sent a TWX to
ask that he check into it. He wrote reports on it, but has no copies, and is
not sure where they'd be in Air Force files.
We had all kinds of troubles [with these things] in Europe. But the
phenomena were quite different in Japan—the accounts were different in
Japan—they were all one type ... "red fireballs."
Griggs went on to tell McDonald his musings about jet exhausts being
misinterpreted, about dark nights with no background leading to tricks of
perception, about war nerves, and all of that. He then related how he and a crew
had been temporarily fooled by the Moon rising under just the wrong (or
right) conditions. But Griggs did not really believe that such things explained all
the foo fighter reports. McDonald: “I asked if he felt all this was mass hysteria.
Griggs said: ‘No, of course not.’” Griggs ended this part of the story by saying
that “he felt there was something real involved, but was not sure what it was.” In
the cases Griggs collected in Europe he stated, “The air observers reports were
all over enemy territory—never over our ground. Anxiety that the enemy might
have something we needed to know about kept the checking under way. [And],
there were reports of engine disturbances over— [word could be “Reich” as it
begins with an R and is 4 or 5 letters in length].”
The key point here is that Griggs knew of aircraft engine interference cases in
connection with foo fighters—not just one, but multiple instances. When the war
in Europe ended, Griggs took his expertise and his side-task about foo fighters to
the Pacific as that phase of the war also wound down.
Notwithstanding the fact that Griggs spent far more time in the European
Theatre than the Pacific, he thought the reports from the Pacific were more
numerous. There was a lot of concern because Allied Intelligence knew that the
Japanese were experimenting with electromagnetic rays, and Intelligence
wondered whether the enemy had developed some sort of beamed weapon that
could produce the red-orange fireballs. When Griggs was transferred to the
Pacific Theatre as part of the Compton Scientific Intelligence Committee to
examine Japanese military-technology research, he made a special effort to track
down the electromagnetic beam experiments and anything else that might
explain the foo fighter observations. Griggs did as much checking as he could,
but found nothing. He felt that the Japanese were not hiding anything. They
found no records of on-ground observations by Japanese personnel or pilots,
though he could have missed that, he conceded.
Concerning the “ray” technology, it did exist, but at a rudimentary level.
“[Their devices] could stop engines at short range . . . one massive device could
kill a rabbit at a [word hard to read, possibly meter].” Griggs and McDonald go
on to discuss the size of the device (a ten-meter dish), power (“Megawatt-CW”),
and effective agency (“not thermal”). The device was shipped to the U.S. and
studied here thoroughly (one wonders what resulted from that investigation).
Concerning the Japanese reports, Griggs stated, “They had a lot of data on
location. Certain regions were of high frequency in Japan. Southwest of Tokyo
[was one such]. There were three such regions [of high report density].”
McDonald noted that through all of Griggs’ exploration into cases and into
Japanese R&D, “he could not find anything in Japanese records to match our Air
Force's B-29 crew reports. He felt that he had really looked for it, but found
zero.” Japanese technology does not seem to have produced the foo fighter
reports.
Griggs' research led him to the conclusion that many of the foo fighter reports
were real and unexplained by any military technology. Neither the above-
mentioned Compton Scientific Intelligence Committee in Japan, nor the many
attempts to “rescue” and assess German technologies in Europe, discovered
anything that would account for them. And note: they were seriously looking for
it. No on- the-ground recovery missions, such as those led by Wright-Patterson
AFB's Air Materiel Command (AMC) came up with any explanatory devices.
Foo fighters remained a mystery and an interest. In February of 1952, the
intelligence center at Wright-Patterson sent the Director of Air Force Intelligence
at the Pentagon a message about the fireballs and possible explanations for it.
Under a paragraph titled “fireballs” are these remarks: “These phenomena made
their appearance over both Germany and Japan during World War II. They have
never been completely explained, and there is no record of aircraft having been
damaged by them.”
Wright-Patterson then goes on to speculate about flying bombs and rockets, or
balloon-supported incendiaries, despite the fact that none of these concepts
match the bulk of the reports. But we crave explanations, even in the military.
Our military still had some concerns about these things and the intelligence
department at Wright-Patterson had some (currently unreleased) source of
information about them to which it could refer.
Another example of ongoing interest occurred the following year when Albert
Simpson, the chief of the USAF Historical Division (Air University, Maxwell
AFB) learned of an anomalous aerial phenomenon report over Japan. This
jogged his memory of an old report of a foo fighter incident from the mid-
Pacific. He thought this important enough to send it to General John Samford,
the Air Force's Chief of Intelligence. It read:
Headquarters VII Bomber Command Mission Report No. 11-327 Date: 2
May 1945 (GCT) OBSERVATIONS: The crews of plane #616 over FALA
ISLAND, TRUK ATOLL, at 021802Z observed 2 airborne objects at their
11,000 foot altitude changing from a cherry red to an orange, and to a
white light which would die out and then become cherry red again. These
 objects were out on either wing and not within range of caliber-50
machine guns. Both followed the B-24 thru all types of evasive action. A B-
24 took a course for GUAM and one of the pursuers dropped off at
021900Z after accompanying the B-24 for an hour. The other continued to
follow, never approaching closer than 1000 yards and speeding up when
the B-24 went thru clouds to emerge on the other side ahead of the B-24.
In daylight it was seen to be bright silver in color.7

At this moment in UFOlogical history, several conclusions are supported by the
documentation:
1. Many Allied pilots encountered light spheres or lighted objects in both
theatres of WWII;
2. These encounters have never been explained despite some serious
attempts at doing so;
3. The military intelligence community remained aware and interested in
the phenomenon well after the end of WWII;
4. Despite there being this interest and information about the foo fighter
reports, this information has, at least in part, never been released (known
example: the reports Griggs says he wrote, which could have been what
Wright-Patterson was referring to in their 1952 report to Air Force
Intelligence.)8
At the cessation of World War II, the victors, with thinly veiled hostility, stared
at one another across what was to become the “Iron Curtain.” The Soviets
controlled their nation with a philosophy almost completely antithetical to that of
the West, and particularly that of the United States. Very few people saw
anything but strife and, probably, war between the two giants. But the United
States had The Bomb, and so maybe the West was safe after all.
The Big War was over. People were pouring out of the military and going on
with their lives. Let's not worry about the ‘backward’ Russians. Let’s enjoy what
we’ve earned. Although no one, not even military and intelligence analysts,
could blame the average Joe for this attitude, the shrinkage in the strength of the
military force was alarming. And it was not only good old G.I. Joe who was
leaving. The high-skills people and the brain trust were “retiring” as well.
The government reacted in a variety of ways. One was to increase salaries and
incentives to stay in the force. Another was to allow established skilled people to
retire from the military and still serve in the same “military” function: that is,
people took off their uniforms and still came to work. Special programs and
organizations were funded to attract the brain trust (whether to engineering
projects or secret consultancies) to remain within the talent pool controlled by
the military.
One of these latter organizations was RAND. The name was almost an
acronym (Research and Development) and was the invention of Air Force chief
Henry (Hap) Arnold. Arnold was sensing what almost everyone else was: the
future of military supremacy was going to come through the air. But how? Some
said through jet planes; some said by giant bombers; but most intuited that the
real “high ground” was going to be a lot higher. Most thought that, sooner or
later, the real power, and the real threat, was going to come from space. That
meant rockets, and perhaps even rocket planes, driven, maybe, by nuclear
engines.
The Navy inspired the idea of the importance of outer space. Yes, the oceans
were their domain, but the powers in the Navy saw that military superiority in
the context of inter-service rivalry within the United States military
establishment was going to be much more difficult if they too were not “in the
air.” And so, surprisingly to many people, the Navy launched its own rockets and
space satellite research alongside the Army Air Force. The two rivals met in
March of 1946 to discuss combining their brains into a single rocket/satellite
project. The negotiating teams thought that this was a good idea. The
recommendation was passed up to Air Force chief of research and development,
General Curtis LeMay. We do not know what he said, but it amounted to “no.”
Arnold (and LeMay) immediately created RAND.12
RAND was composed largely of aerotech experts from Douglas, North
American, and Northrop facilities in the Santa Monica area. Its chief was
Franklin Collbohm. Collbohm got the first task from LeMay: “get me a
feasibility estimate on orbiting a space device.” Aeronautical missile engineer
Jimmy Lipp got the assignment. In two months Lipp helped author the first-ever
RAND report: “Preliminary Design of an Experimental World Circling Space
Ship.” In June, Air Force General Craigie showed the report to the Navy, ending
discussions of any joint cooperation.
Within the report, Air Force Scientific Advisor L. N. Ridenour reminded
everyone of what they were really doing: “There is little difference in design and
performance between an intercontinental rocket missile and a satellite. Thus a
rocket missile with a free space trajectory of 6,000 miles requires a minimum
energy of launching, which corresponds to an initial velocity of 4.4 miles per
second, while a satellite requires 5.4. Consequently, the development of a
satellite will be directly applicable to the development of an intercontinental
rocket missile.”13
So there it was: ICBMs. And to carry what? Need it be said? The nuclear
warhead space missile delivery system was feasible, according to RAND. Next,
a power plant had to be developed to launch the system. In a combined effort
between the Air Force and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Nuclear Energy
for Propulsion of Aircraft project (NEPA) was formed in 1946 to pursue this
“dream.”14
Although this discussion so far has focused on developments taking place in
the U.S. military establishment, none of these possibilities could have been
missed by military authorities elsewhere. It was into this environment that
sightings of unexplained rocket-like phenomena began to be reported in
Scandinavia.15

Notes

1 The best generic treatment of the foo fighters which might be available in a
local library is the entry in the major reference work on UFOlogy: Jerome
Clark’s The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, 2 vols., 1998. The entry “Foo
Fighters” appears in Volume One, 416-420. An interesting treatment, involving
cases reported by servicemen to UFO researchers after the War, appears in
Gordon Lore and Harold Deneault, Mysteries of the Skies, 1968 (Chapter 8, 115-
134). Another well-researched piece is part of Loren Gross’ Charles Fort, the
Fortean Society, and Unidentified Flying Objects, 1976 (Chapter 5, 50-62). The
most well known early article on the mystery was Jo Chamberlain, “The Foo
Fighter Mystery,” The American Legion Magazine, December 1945: 43-47. A
more recent and very thorough coverage of the foo fighters is the entire subject
of Keith Chester’s Strange Company, 2007.
2 Barry Greenwood and Lawrence Fawcett, “First Official Foo-Fighter Records
Discovered,” Just Cause (32), June 1992 and September 1992 (entire bulletins).
These bulletins quote incidents of encounters taken directly from the
microfilmed history and “War Diary” of the 415th Night Fighter Squadron of the
European theatre, as held at the U.S. Air Force Historical Research Center at
Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
3 “Floating Mystery Ball is New Nazi Air Weapon,” New York Times, 14
December, 1944. No one knows if any alleged photograph of a foo fighter is
legitimate.
4 Frederick C. Durant, Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory Panel on
Unidentified Flying Objects Convened by Office o f Scientific Intelligence, CIA,
January 14-18, 1953, 1953.
5 Ivan A. Getting and John M. Christi, A Biographical Memoir of David Tressel
Griggs 1911-1974, 1994.
6 David T. Griggs, interview with Dr. James E. McDonald, 10 April, 1969.
Notes filed in James E. McDonald archival collection, University of Arizona
archives, Tucson, Arizona (Box 5, folder “Foo Fighters.”) Material from this file
is quoted extensively in Michael D. Swords, “David Griggs and the Foo
Fighters,” International UFO Reporter 31 (1): 17-19, 2007.
7 Albert P. Simpson, Chief, USAF Historical Division, Maxwell AFB, Alabama,
to Major General John A. Samford, Director of Intelligence, Headquarters
USAF, 22 January 1953, with attachment “Mission Report No. 11-327.
Headquarters VII Bomber Command, 2 May 1945.”
8 Joint Message form from Commanding Officer, Air Technical Intelligence
Command to Director of Intelligence, Headquarters USAF, Feb. 1952.
9 Wolfgang W. E. Samuel, American Raiders—The Race to Capture the
Luftwaffe’s Secrets, 2004.
10 D. L. Putt, German Developments in the Field of Guided Missiles, Document
#: F-SU-1122-ND, 12 July, 1946.
11 N. LeBlanc, German Flying Wings Designed by Horten Brothers, Document
#: F-SU-1110-ND, 5 July, 1946.
12 R. Cargill Hall, “Early U.S. Satellite Proposals,” Technology and Culture, IV
(4): 412-434, Fall 1963.
13 R. Cargill Hall, 421.
14 R. W. Bussard and .D. Delaver, Fundamentals of Nuclear Flight, 1965.
15 For general overviews of the Ghost Rocket mystery, we again recommend the
entry in Jerome Clark’s The UFO Encyclopedia. Loren Gross’ volume in his
multi-volume UFO’s: A History, 3rd edition, 1988, is excellent. Because of the
value of Loren’s chronicle of directly quoted primary sources, we will refer to
his work often. For shorthand, these citations will read: “Gross,” followed by the
date of the chronicle volume or supplemental notes. A few articles also stand
out: 1) Jan Aldrich, “Investigating the Ghost Rockets,” International UFO
Reporter 23 (4): 9-14, Winter 1998; 2) Don Berliner, “The Ghost Rockets of
Sweden,” Official UFO 1 (11): 30-31, 60-64, October 1976; 3) Anders Liljegren
and Clas Svahn, “The Ghost Rockets” in H. Evans and J. Spencer, UFOs: 1947-
1987, 1987, 32-38. Further, an electronic book covering these and wider missile-
related matters is also recommended. It is an annotated chronicle by Joel
Carpenter, Guided Missiles and UFOs, findable at the prolific website “Project
1947” (citation [Link]

 Chapter 2: Ghost Rockets

For seven months during the first year of peace after the Second World War,
Sweden, Norway and Finland experienced a scare that brought back memories of
German weapons, weapons powerful enough to bring death and destruction from
afar. The year 1946 brought sightings of unknown rocket- type devices that
would become known as Ghost Rockets.
It is hard to tell when the first report of an unknown “rocket” was made, and
at first they were only reported as lights in the sky in early January.1 In February
an air traffic controller in Harnosand decided to turn on the runway lights since
several people had heard a persistent sound from an engine from the sky even
though the night was dark and a snow storm made all flights impossible. Two
weeks later the second bright meteor for the year left a long trail of smoke in the
sky when it crossed the heavens in broad daylight on February 21.2
The first report of a rocket-like craft was made over Stora Mellösa not far
from Orebro on May 21. Two motorists saw what they later reported to the local
police as an elongated craft resembling a rocket or zeppelin. One of the
witnesses could distinguish two short wings and thought it to be a glider plane.
The other witness, who made his observation separately from the first, could not
see any wings during the five minutes that he and his family followed the
unknown object.3
A couple of days later witnesses who talked to the newspaper Morgon-
Tidningen compared a series of observations of bright meteors in the south of
Sweden with the “flying bombs” they remembered to have seen over Sweden
during the war and on May 25 Aftonbladet used the expression “rocketbomb” in
a headline.4 And it was in Aftonbladet that the expression “Spökraket,” Ghost
Rocket, was used for the first time in a headline, but not in the article itself, a
few days later, on May 28.5
Thus far the reports of unidentified objects flying over Sweden had not
prompted the interest of the Swedish military. At a meeting in early June
between the British Air Attaché in Stockholm and General Bengt Nordenskiöld,
the Commander-in-Chief of the Swedish Air Force, the Attaché was surprised
over the lack of interest from the Swedish military. “He was convinced they
were not true and [were] merely imagination, or observations of ordinary
meteorites [sic],” the Attaché noted. And at the time the General may have been
entitled to this view. The early reports of Ghost Rockets mostly constituted lights
in the sky, most probably meteors.
But the many reports in the newspapers and also a few reaching the Defense
Staff and local police during the early summer puzzled and interested the
military. In a special order dated June 26 the Commander of the military district
in Morjarv in the very north of Sweden issued instructions on how to report
incidents with “certain kind of light phenomena” that could be associated with
“tests made by foreign powers with guided weapons.”6 Starting on July 6 and
through a series of meetings a special committee was formed with Colonel Bengt
Jacobsson from the Royal Air Management as chairman.
The committee issued its final report on December 23.7
The committee did get a head start. On the 9th of July hundreds of
observations were made from mostly central Sweden. One of them even
produced a picture. The picture was taken by a married couple on vacation that
had stopped for a rest on a clear and hot summer day. Erik and Asa Reutersward
had just taken a swim in a nearby lake at Guldsmedshyttan, located north-
northwest of Lindesberg, 200 kilometers west of Stockholm. The time was 2:30
p.m. and the two of them climbed a forest watchtower, situated by an abandoned
silver mine, to admire the view. The tower, which during the war years had been
used as an aerial reconnaissance tower, offered them a breathtaking view of the
landscape. They could see for miles and miles. “I remember the event very
well,” Reutersward said when he met with Clas Svahn years later:

We were out hiking peacefully and didn't think of any Ghost Rockets. We
climbed the tower in order to photograph the view, and we were
completely alone except our one-year-old son. At the exact same moment
as I pushed the shutter button, there it was! Something mysterious falling
from the sky that both me and my wife observed. I'm not able to remember
exactly how it looked, but I know that it was a light which passed us. It
looked rather special. We were both startled, and for a long time discussed
what it could have been.8

In his report to the Ministry of Defense's Air Defense department, dated on the
11th of July and written on the vicarage at Guldsmedshyttan, Erik Reuterswärd
retells the story the following way:

We observed a sharp, greenish white (neon-colored light) gleam of light in
the northwestern direction and at a 45 degree angle, which emerged
suddenly and swiftly moved downwards perhaps five moon diameters;
after which it disappeared. The disappearance occurred —by my opinion
—with a[n] explosion like a burst of flames, and I also thought myself
hearing a hissing sound. We got the impression that it was a meteorite,
though we have never seen one in daylight. The whole incident was over in
a moment.9

And Erik Reutersward was right. What he had caught on film was a daylight
meteor seen by thousands at 2:30 p.m., July 9. The reports came from all over
central Sweden where the weather was nice and the visibility good. The many
reports coming in from a very large area further indicated that the object spotted
must have traveled high in the atmosphere. The picture was handed over to the
Ministry of Defense which was swarmed by the press and felt obligated to hand
out the picture to Morgon-Tidningen in Stockholm.10
In spite of all the evidence pointing to a daylight meteor at the time, the
picture was a great mystery for the military. In an attempt to find an explanation,
Major Nils Dahlgren, who had interrogated Erik Reutersward, wrote the head of
the shooting range at AB Bofors, a major Swedish manufacturer of weapons.
Could it have been a rocket launch by Bofors? The answer was no: No launches
had been made at the time of the sighting.11
The affair was of a sensitive nature. Major Ahlgren, in his letter to Bofors,
demanded the matter be considered classified. Furthermore, he turned to
Professor Bertil Lindblad at Stockholm observatory for an explanation. But his
answer was ambiguous: “However, judging from the photograph and the visual
sightings, one cannot definitely rule out the possibility that what we have here is
a meteor.” In an attachment to the letter, professor Lindblad presented an idea for
a “V-bomb spectrograph,” a surveillance camera which could differentiate
meteors and rocket bombs by analyzing their spectra.12
Even though a picture of a “Ghost Rocket” was a sensation and the photo soon
was printed in newspapers in several countries, all Erik and Asa Reutersward
earned from it was 50 Swedish Kronor (Seven U.S. dollars).
A more tantalizing documentation of a Ghost Rocket was made on August 22,
1946, when the photographer and owner of a photo business in Gothenburg, Mr.
Gosta Skog, was traveling to Stockholm by car together with three friends. After
stopping for lunch in Linkoping the party passed Norrkoping and decided to take
a break near the small community of Geta, 100 miles south of Stockholm. Gosta
Skog brought out his film camera, a Paillard-Bolex 16 mm loaded with color
film, to shoot some views. The camera was put on a tripod and the lenses were
rotated so that a middle range lens was put in use for some nice shots around the
horizon. But only a few moments after Gosta Skog had started to film he was
interrupted by one of his friends who shouted and pointed to the sky right above
them. “When I turned my head I saw a cigar-shaped object with fire coming out
from the end flying right above me,” Gosta Skog told Clas Svahn during one of
several interviews. “It was just like an ordinary cigar flying over us, and I turned
my camera and switched to the telephoto lens and started film.”13 The cigar-
shaped object came from the South and seemed to be flying at a relatively low
altitude, around 3,000 feet. Even though the velocity of the cigar was rather high
Gosta Skog says that he was able to keep the object in the lens during the entire
observation.

It appeared from a cloud, out against the blue sky, and into the next cloud,
out again and then vanishing to the north. I could not make out any details
on the surface but it had a dark color and from the rear exhaust flames
were emitted in the same fashion as you could see on American space
rockets many years later. But there was no sound at all.

After the rocket had vanished, the four men continued their journey to
Stockholm, all very upset and talking about the observation during the remaining
125 miles. Gosta Skog was so excited that he was shaking. The camera had been
put into its protective box and after a while the men decided that the best thing to
do was to call the Air Staff. “As soon as I came to my hotel in Stockholm I made
the call and was asked to go directly to the Air Staff with the film,” says Gosta
Skog.
 According to the only surviving note about the incident in the military
archives, Gosta Skog made the call at 7 p.m. At the Air Staff the four men were
divided and each subjected to a 30-minute-long interrogation by two military
officers. They were asked to come back two hours later when the film had been
developed. Seated in a screening room together with several officers, the four
friends felt the importance of the occasion. The lights went out and the film
started to roll. But it was totally blank. “Then I realized that when I had changed
to the telephoto lens the aperture was still on 2.5, so the whole film was
overexposed! I had been so excited that I forgot this simple thing,” says Gosta
Skog, who never got his film back. And the film is still lost, as are the notes
from the interrogation of the four men.
The Gösta Skog observation came a little more than a week after one of the
most remarkable military sightings during the Ghost Rocket wave. On August 14
Swedish Air Force pilot Lieutenant Gunnar Irholm and his signaler, Corporal
Möller, were flying on a training mission between Malingsbo and Krylbo in
Dalecarlia. The time was a couple of minutes after ten o’clock in the morning
and the visibility was good with a rainstorm coming in from the southeast. The
two men were flying a B18A bomber at 650 feet over a forest area 4.3 miles
east-northeast of Malingsbo church when Gunnar Irholm suddenly saw an
unknown aircraft coming from his left on a southeasterly course in front of their
airplane. “Just over the horizon I could see an elongated object without the
typical features of an aircraft. It had no tailfin, for example. What we saw was
the picture of a cigar, a torpedo. We were close enough to be sure that this was
not an aircraft,” Gunnar Irholm remembered when interviewed in 1986.14 His
report was filed just minutes after landing in Vasteras. There Gunnar Irholm
wrote that after spotting the object they lost eye contact for a short period of
time, but after adjusting their height it reappeared 20 seconds later. “I
immediately put my aircraft on a parallel course and put on full power. The
shortest distance we had to the craft was just over 3,000 feet [one kilometer] but
I soon realized that we were not able to catch up with the craft whose speed I
estimate to between 370 and 430 miles per hour. Two minutes later it had
vanished to the South East,” Irholm wrote in the official report.15 The unknown
object vanished into the storm cloud.
A full investigation was made and Lieutenant Irholm and Corporal Möller
were both summoned to a meeting with one of the prime investigators from the
Ghost Rocket committee, Eric Malmberg, eight days later. Eric Malmberg’s
conclusion was that the object had not been a Swedish aircraft. But what was it?
“He must have seen something. I later got to know Gunnar Irholm very well and
he was always a very balanced person,” said Eric Malmberg later in an
interview.16 And Gunnar Irholm was a pilot with great experience. At the time
of the observation he was in charge of a division of B 18s and would later the
same year fly to Britain in charge of bringing four J28 Vampires back to Sweden.
He was later appointed to head the military testing grounds at Malmslatt where
new aircraft, missiles and rockets were tested before being used by the armed
forces.
To Gunnar Irholm the incident over Dalecarlia was a mystery for all of his
life. In one of his telephone conversations with Clas Svahn, he said that no one
ever made fun of him or failed to take him seriously when he told them about the
strange craft. What it was he never knew: “As I sensed it the object never
bothered about us but just kept flying on its course. It was a grey cigar, pointed
in both ends, around 50 feet [15 meters] long and just over 3 feet [one meter] in
diameter. I had hoped that they should have registered something on radar but I
never got any information that it was seen.”17
Even though Gunnar Irholm’s encounter was to be the only contact with a
Ghost Rocket made by a Swedish pilot during 1946, there were several other
incidents that puzzled the Ghost Rocket committee. During four days in July, the
Defense Staff received around 300 reports and when the summer was over, 997
reports had been registered by the Staff. The real number of observations
probably far exceeded that.
The objects passed over Sweden in the most varied directions and though
many suspected Russia to be the culprit, that suspicion was never confirmed.
The Ghost Rocket committee thought that the Russians had continued
experimenting with captured German V-weapons and now were trying them out
from bases along the coast. On several occasions during the autumn, Swedish
reconnaissance aircraft were sent to pick up signals near the Baltic border.
Russian fighter aircraft were immediately scrambled against the Swedish
pilots.18 But even though most of the observations were made at night and the
bulk against the Swedish of the reports could at the time or later be identified as
meteors, the Swedish Defense Staff took the Ghost Rockets seriously, as did the
politicians.
The meteor theory was discussed at the time, but in spite of several suspected
finds of meteorites that were analyzed by scientists, not one proved to be of
meteoritic origin. Several Ghost Rockets were reported to have crashed on
Swedish and Norwegian soil, all of them in lakes with huge columns of water
rocketing from the surface at the impact. Four of the crashes were reported on
the same day, July 19, when a series of observations culminated with the crashes
of unknown objects in lakes in Norrbothnia and close to Soderhamn, a town
much further south.
Twenty-four hours earlier another object crashed in the 300 meter deep lake
Mj0sa in Norway with several witnesses seeing large columns of water coming
from the site of impact: “We saw an object coming from the west with great
speed before falling into the lake,” said Henry Skaug, one of several witnesses.
His sister Ase Tandberg recalls the strange sound which made the family look
up: “We were out working in the fields when we heard a strong wind and shortly
after the water in the lake splashed with a column rising. But it was all over in
such a short time that we never got a good look at the object.”19 Theories about
the object being a loon or that the water column was the result of a small tornado
were being discussed in the press, but neither of these possibilities seemed to
cover what was to happen in Sweden the day after.
Friday the 19th of July was one of many hot days during this summer of 1946.
In a field below the small village of Bolebyn outside Pitea in the north of
Sweden, Leonard Danielsson and his sons Kjell, Dan, and Hans were working
out in the fields. It was 11:15 a.m. The oldest brother Borje was not at home,
serving as an air force pilot at Ljungbyhed. But his interests had influenced the
smaller brothers who liked to build model planes and often looked at the sky for
clouds. So also this day. “We had sat down to drink coffee. It was 23-24 degrees
Celsius in the shade and just a few clouds were in the sky,” remembers Kjell
who was 14 years old at the time of the incident.

Suddenly we discovered something we thought was an aeroplane low at
the southwestern horizon. It went right against the wind and rather high
up, and sometimes it twinkled as if it had moved, maybe rotated.
Sometimes it disappeared for a short while behind a cloud.20

What the boys saw they later described as a large metallic canister for milk, a bit
thicker at one end. The object traversed from horizon to horizon for at least 20
minutes before it disappeared in the northwest. “We stood looking at the shiny
object for rather a long time,” the other brother, Dan Danielsson tells, as he
remembers what trouble they had convincing their father that they should
continue observing the strange “aircraft” instead of going back to work.21
The three brothers tried their best to catch some sound from the craft that
shone like aluminum in the bright sun, but a noisy haymaking machine in a field
close by made it impossible to hear. Kjell asked the farmer to turn off his
machine for a while but the farmer refused. Just after 11:30 a.m. the “milk can”
disappeared out of sight. And after that things began to fall out of the sky.
To Knut Lindback and his maid Beda Persson, this Friday was a day filled
with work. They and many others were engaged in haymaking. Knut and Beda
were working on one of Lake Kölmjärv’s banks. It was 11:45 a.m. and almost
lunchtime when they and several others heard a humming sound from the sky.
“Since I thought it was an aircraft I looked up,” Knut told Clas Svahn 40 years
later. “But instead I saw a rocket-like object crashing right into the lake. A high
splash rose into the air when the object hit the surface and was soon followed by
another cascade as if something had detonated.”22 An ash-grey rocket-like
object had not only crashed into the lake but also detonated. On the other side of
the lake was Frideborg Tagebo. This 14-year-old girl was cleaning the house as
her mother was washing clothes down by the Knut Lindback lakeside.

Suddenly we heard a roaring thunder as from an engine. My mother yelled
to me to close the windows. She thought it was a heavy storm coming.
Then there was a loud bang as coming from an explosion and I saw a huge
splash of water out in the lake. Our dog went mad and ran away.
Afterwards there was a total silence and we could see a lot of debris
floating on the surface of the lake. The sound was terrible; I have never
heard anything like it.23

Soon after the crash Knut Lindback took a small rowing boat and went out to
the site of the impact. The grey “rocket” had crashed a little more than a half a
mile away, close to the southwest bank. “When I arrived at the spot I saw
seaweed and water lilies that had been tom up with their roots from the bottom
and thrown on the bank. The water was muddy with clay and it was impossible
to see if there was something on the bottom,” Knut related later. “There is no
doubt that it was a solid object. It was about two yards [two meters] long, had a
stubbed nose while the end was pointed. I thought I saw a pair of small wings on
both sides, but I am not absolutely sure. Everything happened so fast.”24
The incident shook the whole village. Had a bomb exploded out on the lake?
Beda Persson walked, as did many others, down to the shore to look at the point
of impact. She could see mud thrown up on the banks.25 Frideborg Tagebo also
remembers the effects of the “ghost bomb.” “But all we could see was seaweed
and water lilies floating on the water.”26 The roots of the water lilies tom off
were thick as a wrist. The same evening the police and local home guard posted
people around the lake, after a neighbor had phoned the chief of police. The
order was to secure the area and guard the point of impact.
On Saturday morning of the 20th of July, Lieutenant Karl-Gösta Bartoll from
Boden engineer troops (Ing 3) received a phone call from Colonel Wilhelm
Dahlgren and was ordered to leave as quickly as possible for Kölmjärv. In a
hastily written order Bartoll was dispatched: “Leave as quickly as possible on
motorcycle for Kölmjärv and investigate the possibilities to salvage a ‘ghost
bomb’ that reportedly has fallen down in Kölmjärv,” it said. Suddenly things
were turning serious. At 2:30 p.m. Lieutenant Bartoll arrived at the spot and six
hours later the salvage party, which at this point consisted of seven men, had
already searched an area of 430 square yards around the point of impact.
On that same day engineer Roland Rynniger and laboratory technician Torsten
Wilner from the Defense Research Department (FOA) also arrived with a
portable instrument for detecting radioactivity. It could not be ruled out that the
rocket had been carrying radioactive material.
Karl-Gösta Bartoll’s investigation of the lake was very thorough. Not only the
bottom of the lake but also its surroundings were searched inch by inch, as the
object might have bounced after impact and ended up in the woods. The work
usually began shortly before eight o’clock in the morning and was not ended
until approximately six o’clock in the evening. Sometimes the work went on
even longer, as everybody was keen to find the fallen Ghost Rocket. From the
beginning the search was conducted from a small rowing boat, but on the 29th of
July the military began building a raft. From there it was possible to see that mud
and stones from deeper layers had been forced towards the surface. Everything
pointed to an underwater explosion. “They built the raft on the shore,” Rune
Lindback, the neighbor who first contacted the authorities, relates. “They
carefully avoided using nails of metal that could disturb their sensitive
equipment.” The raft was tied together with ropes.29 To facilitate the search, the
lake was divided into squares. Ropes were tied between the shores and then the
equipment was hauled slowly over the bottom. Every square inch was to be
searched. At regular intervals samples of the bottom were taken. But in spite of
35,000 samples brought to the surface, no traces of metal were found.
Rynninger and Wilner put forth a theory that the Ghost Rocket had had a
nuclear power source onboard. The small size would be proof of that, the two
scientists argued. “If the projectile really was so small [around seven feet] it
seems hard to explain that with ordinary fuel it had been able to complete the
range that could be presumed,” they wrote in their report after coming back to
Stockholm.30
The search in the lake was soon to draw the attention not only from the people
living there but also from others. “Already after a few days at the lake our men
discovered a couple of mysterious people who stalked the woods,” Karl-Gösta
Bartoll tells. Soon afterwards Bartoll discovered that the telephone that was used
to report to the staff in Boden was out of order. “When we checked the line it
was discovered that someone had cut it off with a pair of pliers. It went so far
that we finally dared not to use the telephone to report to the staff in case we
were tapped. Instead we were forced to send our results by ordnance.”31 In
Stockholm the members of the Ghost Rocket committee met to discuss the
incident at Kölmjärv just three days after it happened, but there are no
indications in the secret documents that the sabotage of the telephone wires was
ever discussed.32 Between the July 15 and December 10, the group held twelve
meetings where records were taken, and at several occasions they sent personnel
to interview witnesses and investigate the point of impact. Thirty-three pieces of
alleged debris from the Ghost Rockets were analyzed, all with natural
explanations.
The incident at Kölmjärv was one of several, but probably the one judged to
be most important. For a while consideration was given to emptying the entire
lake to find the mysterious rocket. The proposal to drain the lake was put
forward by Colonel Dahlgren at Ing 3 at Boden and it was discussed in detail in
the group. But at a meeting at the Air Staff on the 10th of August, it was agreed
that it would be too expensive - at least 3,000 US dollars.33 Instead hopes were
placed in a detector constructed for finding mines. If the object had been made
of iron, the instrument would react. But it was not that simple; the deep mud on
the bottom of the lake made the search problematic. “We started out with the
detector on the raft, but the results were poor,” said Karl-Gösta Bartoll. “The
lake was two meters deep at the point of impact and it was simply too deep to
get a reading.”
On the 1st of August specialists from the mine company Boliden came to the
lake, bringing with them a new kind of apparatus for spotting ore, the equivalent
of the metal detectors of today. With the new instrument Bartoll and his team
found a gas apparatus and other objects of iron that had been thrown in the lake
during the winter, but no rocket.34 But the media wanted the Ghost Rocket to be
found. Only a week after the crash, the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter
wrote: “The rocket that some time ago hit Lake Kölmjärv, 15 kilometers [9
miles] north of Overkalix, has been found, according to reliable sources. The
message could however not be confirmed Sunday evening due to a fierce
thunderstorm that broke the telephone lines to Kölmjärv.”35 The authorities
denied the rumors, and in a telegram distributed by Swedish wire service TT
they stated that no “ghost bomb” has been found: “The lake is shallow but the
bottom has a thick layer of mud that makes it difficult to salvage the projectile. If
it can be found. The rumor this Sunday that it had been surfaced is therefore
totally unfounded.”36
It was not only the Swedish media that closely followed the search in
Kölmjärv and the ever increasing reports of unknown rockets. As early as July
the British Embassy sent some of their staff, privately, to the Finnish Island of
Aland to see if any launch facilities could be found that could explain the rocket
sightings. But in a short memorandum it was stated that no such facilities,
suspected to be of Russian origin, had been found. Similar actions were taken
regarding possible rocket stations at Darlowo and Ustka at the Polish Baltic Sea
region.37 During the summer of 1946 contacts were held between the Swedish
Chief of Combined Intelligence Board and the British military Attaché to
Stockholm. An agreement for complete cooperation between the two countries
was made on July 12, and three days later the Swedish Air Force supplied
complete analytical reports of all observations to date; they also made a request
for radar equipment and other technical requirements. The Swedish requests
were immediately sent to the Air Ministry.
 The co-operation between Sweden and Britain was working smoothly and had
as a goal to make British radar available to the Swedes together with experts
running them. Squadron Leader Barrie Heath and Major Malone of the War
Office landed in Sweden on July 18 for a stay ending nearly two weeks later to
make a first contact. Fleet, a Wing Commander for Britain, was sent as a liaison
to spend a week with the Finnish General Staff. In Oslo, British Ambassador
Laurence Collier sent regular dispatches regarding the Norwegian approach to
the Ghost Rockets to Robin Hankey, head of the Foreign Office’s Northern
Department, which also included Russia. On August 12 another high ranking
officer from the Royal Air Force landed in Sweden, as Wing Commander B. J.
Jennings started to scout for possible sites to locate the British radar equipment,
and found two potential sites at the island of Gotland not far from the Baltic
area. All this was done under the cover of Britain sending experts to get the radar
equipment for the newly purchased Vampire aircrafts up and running.38
On July 21 the Swedish General Staff decided to reopen a series of radar
stations used during the Second World War. Though several echoes were
registered, no information that could reveal the source behind the unknowns was
found (this could very well be attributed to old and not very reliable radar).
The Swedish military wanted to keep the Swedish-British contacts private. In
a telegram from the British Embassy in Stockholm to the Foreign Office in
London dated 27 July 1946, the Air Attaché writes that the Swedish Air Staff has
requested that “all possible measures” should be taken “to prevent the
Americans finding out about Swedish co-operation” with the British. But some
information did leak. A top-secret report from the American Naval Attaché in
London to the Chief of Naval Intelligence stated that Sweden had handed over to
the British Air Ministry several pieces of material suspected to have come from
the Ghost Rockets. The analysis did not show anything that gave evidence to the
theory that the Ghost Rockets were guided missiles.39
During these preparations a special group of men and equipment called Task
Force 196 had started to assemble in Britain, ready to sail to Sweden on August
22. But just days before Wing Commander Jennings’ arrival in Stockholm the
British Air Attaché met with the then-acting Chief of the General Staff Colonel
Count Thord C:son Bonde, who told him that the British Task Force could not
leave at this point due to political considerations. On August 16 an embarrassed
Colonel Bonde told the Air Attaché Group Captain Henderson that Swedish
Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson, after a meeting with his cabinet, had decided
to suspend the Task Force. A definitive decision, after another cabinet meeting,
was given to the British Air Attaché on August 21, just hours before Task Force
196 was to have left for Sweden. In a bitter note, scribbled on a handwritten
summary over the Prime Minister’s decision dated August 30, someone had
written: “Mr. Jerram has seen this dispatch and agrees that the Swedish Prime
Minister has been both stupid and cowardly.”40
The events that stirred greatest interest among the British were the Kölmjärv,
Vassarajärvi and Kattistrasket crashes—all three in lakes. But the British
Military Attaché was not impressed by the Swedish operation: “There has been
no progress in the recovery of the missiles at Kalix. In all, three lakes are
involved in previous incidents and latest report is of missile falling in the sea
nearby, depth of water just over 3 feet (one meter). It must be appreciated that
Swedish methods of operation are extremely slow and probably unproductive.
Recovery operations are uninspired, radar reports are highly inaccurate.”41
Interest regarding the Ghost Rockets did not only come from Great Britain but
also from the United States. Through their military Attachés in Stockholm and
elsewhere in Europe, a steady stream of summaries and dispatches was sent back
to the Navy, Army, and Air Force. In a French report, translated by the American
Naval Attaché in Paris and prepared for the French president dated August 13,
1946, it is stated that “a good number of these projectiles are of the V-l type in
the form of a torpedo with two small wings,” and a map shows those rockets
coming from the Leningrad (St. Petersburg) and the Baltic area. On the same
day, several Swedish Air Force officers were interviewed by the Naval Attaché
in Stockholm and all of them stated clearly that they believed the intrusions to be
real and with rockets.42
The United States concern went right to the top. On August 1, Assistant
Director of Central Intelligence, Colonel Edwin K. Wright, sent a memorandum
to President Truman 43 shown on pages 22 and 23. When General James
Doolittle, in his capacity as Vice President of Shell Oil Company, visited
Sweden for a couple of days starting August 20, his visit created much
speculation. An article in the New York Times, quoted in Swedish press,44 said
that the General was to examine the Swedish radar systems used for trying to
locate Ghost Rockets. General Doolittle arrived together with another WW2
legend, British Group Captain Douglas Bader, and later the same day,
independently from the others, another WW2 celebrity General David Samoff.
In an interview in the newspaper Expressen, Doolittle commented briefly on the
Ghost Rockets: “I have only seen a couple of reports about your Ghost Rockets
and I have no real idea of what they are. But it would be very interesting to
observe one,” said the General.45 But soon a rumor started to spread that
General Doolittle’s trip to Sweden was a cover up for helping the Swedish
military with those investigations. This was denied by the Chief of the Defense
Staff, Major Curt Kempff. In a private letter to the Swedish military Attaché in
Washington, Colonel Arvid Eriksson, Kempff described how the British Military
Attaché in Stockholm, Major de Salis, had shown him a dispatch from de Salis’
colleague in Washington. That dispatch clearly indicated that General Doolittle,
during his visit a couple of days earlier, had contacted Major Kempff and
forwarded some information regarding the Ghost Rockets. The Major denied this
claim as he explained during a telephone call from a Swedish-speaking
Washington Post journalist and had asserted that he knew that General Doolittle
wanted to share some information with the Swedes. Kempff promised to forward
this information to Air Force Commander General Bengt Nordenskiold, who
was to have lunch with Doolittle. But Nordenskiold, who asked Doolittle if he
had information to forward, later reported that Doolittle’s answer, “to his
surprise,” was that he did not have anything to say regarding that matter.46
Since then the rumor has been published as a fact in several UFO books 47
and is still widely believed. In 1984 Doolittle answered UFO researcher Barry
Greenwood in a letter that he had “no firm knowledge of actual rockets or ‘ghost
rockets’ in Sweden” and referred to press reports as his primary source.48
Swedish UFO researchers and experts on the Ghost Rocket phenomenon, Anders
Liljegren and Clas Svahn, summarized their findings regarding the Doolittle visit
in an article in UFOs 1947 1997: “Had there been any truth in the rumors about
an active exchange of information between Swedish authorities and the two
semi-military American generals, both by this time supposedly out of active
service, we would have expected to find some indication in the Confidential and
Secret Swedish correspondence files we have inspected. We found none.”49
At Kölmjärv no one was uncertain about what they were seeking, but time was
running out. Bartoll led the search for the object until the 12th of August; then
the search had to be terminated. After three weeks of hard labor, with rests only
on Sundays, the lake had been searched with no tangible results. 2000 square
meters a day had been covered in the search for the elusive rocket. The hunt for
what once was described by the chief of the Air Force Major Nils Ahlgren as
“the safest indication of a crash” had yielded nothing.
While the search at Kölmjärv was drawing towards an end, more
“Ghostbombs” were waiting to be rediscovered. Three additional objects had
also fallen into lakes on the same 19th of July 1946. At 11:30 a.m., fifteen
minutes before the crash at Kölmjärv and just after Bengt Danielsson and his
brothers had seen the strange metallic object vanishing behind the tree line in
Bolebyn, eleven-year-old Kurt Larsson sat fishing by a stream at the north end of
Lake Kattistrasket, 40 miles (50 kilometers) further north from Bolebyn. His
father, Borje, and a friend were working 300 meters away. “Suddenly I heard a
roaring sound as when a storm is coming,” Kurt Larsson stated. “Today I would
compare it to a modern jet plane.”50 Kurt looked up to see if the treetops were
moving, but everything was calm. Instead a huge column of water rose out of the
lake a few hundred yards in front of him. “All I saw was a 15 yard high water
column thrown up from the water. It was as if you had detonated a mine.” Kurt
left his fishing rod on the shore and hurried to his father, while yelling “The
devil is in the lake!” convinced that something very bad had happened. Both
Kurt and his father were later questioned by military from Boden. But the lake
was too muddy for a diver to enter. With the help of a ten-yard-long pole it was
decided that whatever had fallen from the sky was embedded in at least five
yards of mud.
Within fifteen minutes after the Danielsson family had lost the metallic
canister out of sight, two objects had fallen into the lakes of Norrbothnia. And
the day had just begun.
At 3:00 p.m. Karl and Tyra Axberg were sitting on the porch of their sporting
cabin when they heard a loud noise like a motor coming from above. Visiting
were their daughter Ulla and a friend, telephone operator Hildur Frid, who also
had a cabin in the vicinity. The powerful sound seemed to come from the west
and the party decided to run to the lakeside, where the view was better. But when
they arrived, the strange sound had stopped and all was quiet. “Suddenly
something gained speed in the reeds not far away and went off to cross the lake,”
Ulla Axberg relates, the only one of the four who was still living in 1985. “At
first I thought it was a bird but the speed was far too high.”51
In a report written a few days after the incident, Chief of Staff Lieutenant Nils
Winstrand, who visited the place and interviewed the witnesses, states: “The
projectile seems to have come in on a very low altitude and hit the water in
roughly a 30 degrees angle...the object continued 200 yards under water where it
seems to have sunk.”52 In his report Lieutenant Winstrand writes that the object
had sounded like a flying grenade during its descent and that the speed had been
so high that a wind had shaken the bushes closest to the lakeside. Winstrand
poked at the bottom with long poles, finding nothing but mud.
In the middle of August, two days after concluding his search at Kölmjärv, Karl-
Gösta Bartoll arrived at Vassarajärvi. For eight days he and ten conscripts led by
a sergeant searched the part of the lake where the object had been seen sinking.
But once again a search for a “ghost bomb” turned out to be fruitless.53
The eventful day of July 19 was not over. Forty minutes after the crash at
Vassarajärvi, an almost identical incident took place by Lake Marmen 560 miles
further south. At 3:40 p.m. Ingrid Hansson, 22, lay sunbathing on a floating jetty
in front of a cabin at Sunnana by the northern end of the lake. Her father, Olov,
lay right beside her. “At first I heard a violent roaring over the water like a
strong gust of wind was coming but did not see the object until it reached the
surface. When I looked up I saw an object bouncing over the surface along the
lake. It kind of rolled over the water and stirred up a wake.”54 Ingrid was so
frightened by the incident that she ran from the jetty up to the cabin. Since the
family did not have a telephone in the cabin, Olav waited a few days before
contacting the military. In a report written on the 23rd of July by Captain E. E.
Karlstrom, chief of staff at the regional military headquarters in Gavle, the
drama is evident:

The projectile created a water column 22 yards [20 meters] high. In
connection with the impact an explosion was heard after which vapor
followed. Following that the projectile moved on, sometimes above the
water, sometimes in the water. The water was colored black during the
motion of the projectile.55

In just a couple of hours, five unidentified objects had been seen from five
different locations in Sweden, four of them crashing into lakes. What was the
cause? Undoubtedly the majority of the reported “Ghost Rockets” from 1946
were meteors mistaken for something else, especially when they were reported at
night. But the events of July 19 did not fit that description.
 Surprisingly, one of the best known Swedish astronomers of the time, Knut
Lundmark at the observatory in Lund, sided with the view that it was military
projectiles since meteors are seldom seen in daylight and rarely observed
crashing to the ground. Professor Bertil Lindblad at Saltsjobaden observatory
was of the same opinion. “The great amount of observed phenomena during May
and June confirms in my view that these cases cannot be meteors, but that we
have here projectiles of some kind,” he writes in a letter to the Department of Air
Defense at the General Headquarters in Stockholm.56 But the experts could not
agree. The chief of the artillery school at Rosersberg, north of Stockholm,
Colonel Sven Ramstrom, declared that the bombs were nothing but meteors.
Whatever it was that crashed into the lakes, it left no tangible traces. A few cut
off water lilies, seaweed, and a pit at the bottom were the only material evidence
of the extraordinary events.
The July 19 events were strange, especially when compared to one of the Nazi
rockets that crashed on Swedish soil during the Second World War, launched
from Peenemünde. On June 13, 1944, a V-2 rocket (also called A4 in Germany)
crashed near the village of Backebo, north of Kalmar in the southeastern part of
Sweden. After a thorough search, 2,200 kilograms of debris was collected and
pieced together. A detailed report was made by Henry Kjellson and Eric
Malmberg, both prominent in the Ghost Rocket investigations two years later.
How this, at the time, brand-new technology could produce more than two
metric tons of metal fragments in the summer of 1944, when the “rockets” of
1946 never left a single scrap of metal, was one of the many unsolved questions
that the Ghost Rocket committee discussed.57
In a final report to the High Commander, the Ghost Rocket Committee stated
that 225 reports had been made in full daylight and that the objects were real.
More than 100 of these reports described spool shaped items with or without
wings.58 In the report the committee also notes that about 100 crashes had been
reported during 1946. However, that figure does not correspond with actual
crashes but to cases where observers had seen something coming down from the
sky and therefore assumed to have hit the ground further away. Many of these
“crashes” were without doubt night-time meteors.
During the first phase of the Ghost Rocket wave and as late as August, most
military sources both in Sweden and abroad, saw the most likely solution to the
Ghost Rocket enigma to be found in Russia. The Swedish position, even though
not expressed in public, was that the rockets were intended as a political move to
intimidate the Swedish politicians and sent over Sweden by the Russian military.
In the United States the recently appointed head of the newly formed Central
Intelligence Group (which in November 1947 was to be transformed into the
CIA), General Hoyt Vandenberg, told President Harry Truman that the Ghost
Rockets were likely Soviet missiles launched from Peenemünde.59
Even if the Ghost Rockets never were identified, the Swedish Defense
establishment never doubted that there really had been intrusions over the
Swedish border. In a draft of the report to the Supreme Commander, Karl-Arvid
Norlin from the Royal Air Material Command suggested the following, writing
to Major Frank Cervell: “There is no doubt that foreign experiments with jet
propelled or rocket weapons have been going on over Sweden.” It was deducted
that these weapons belonged to a wholly new generation of military systems.
“The projectiles are steerable, either by autopilot, and then with a preset
trajectory or steered by radio with radio impulses from a ground station perhaps
with television or by a pilot in the projectile.”60
But the final report, made later in December and containing 987 total reports,
was more skeptical: “Despite the quite extensive effort, which has been carried
out with the means available, and seven months after the first observations, no
actual proof that a test of rocket projectiles has taken place over Sweden has
been found.”61 The Swedish investigation committee recognized the problems
with eyewitnesses but stressed that even though many of the observations could
be attributed to fantasy and misinterpretations, there still were several observers
whose reliability could not be put into question. This problem was also discussed
by the British, since no hard evidence had materialized in spite of so many
reports.
In a secret report made to summarize the activity over Scandinavia prepared
by the British Air Ministry for a wide range of branches within the ministry,
embassies and several military branches in early September 1946 took the
eyewitnesses into consideration. The report stated that it was unlikely that the
objects reported during daytime had been total misinterpretations since
experience from Britain during the war showed that “very rarely did even
untrained observers report seeing non-existent objects in the air during daylight.”
And if the phenomena observed were of natural origin, “they are unusual;
sufficiently unusual to make possible the alternative explanation that at least
some are missiles. If this is so, they must be of Russian origin.” That being said,
the report also concluded that the total of genuine reports of would-be missiles
would amount “to but a few.”62
When 1946 drew to a close, the Ghost Rocket scare was over, but observations
of missile-shaped objects passing over Sweden, investigated by the military,
continued for decades. A definite answer to the Ghost Rockets was never found.

Notes

1 Norra Västerbotten: ’’Mystiskt ljus över Malmö,” 8 January 1946.
2 E. Rosborg to Kungliga Luftfartsstyrelsens trafikavdelning, report, 9 February
1946; Umebladet: “Meteorregn över Västerbotten,” 22 February 1946; and
several other newspapers.
3 Landskansliet i Örebro, 21 June 1946, C46 A 14-2.
4 Morgon-Tidningen: “Fjärrdirigerade bomber spökar lite varstans,” 26 May
1946; Aftonbladet: “Nattarbetare sökte skydd för ‘raketbomben’ i Landskrona,”
25 May 1946.
5 Aftonbladet: “Spokraket jagades i bil genom Roslagen,” 28 May 1946.
6 Stabsorder nr. 19, Morjärvs försvarsområde 16/6 1946.
7 Kungliga flygförvaltningen, Materielavdelningen MEH 412:11, 11 July 1946.
8 Erik and Asa Reutersward, interviews with the author 14 August and 5
December 1986 and several letters. Eric Reutersward passed away 21 February
2002.
9 Eric Reuterswärd to The General Staff’s Air Defense Department 11 July
1946.
10 Major Nils Ahlgren to Erik Reuterswärd 9 August 1946.
11 Major Nils Ahlgren to AB Bofors 5 August 1946; Bofors AB to Major Nils
Ahlgren 7 August 1946.
12 Professor Bertil Lindblad to Major Nils Ahlgren 2 August 1946.
13 Gösta Skog, interviews with Clas Svahn, 11 August 1984, 16 August 1984
and 11 May 1990. 14 Gunnar Irholm, interviews with the Clas Svahn, 25 April
and 20 May 20 1986.
15 Löjtnant G. Irholm med rapport om flygande projektil to Försvarstabens
Luftförsvarsavdelning 14 August 1946.
16 Eric Malmberg, interview, 13 May 1986.
17 Interviews with Gunnar Irholm by Clas Svahn, interviews 25 April and 20
May 1986.
18 “Protokoll fran sammantrade i FF den 23/6 1946 betr projektiler over
Sverige,” Swedish War Archives.
19 Henry Skaug, telephone interview with the Clas Svahn, 3 February 1987; and
Ase Tandberg, telephone interview with the author, 2 February 1987.
20 Kjell Danielsson, telephone interview with Clas Svahn, 13 June 1984; and a
personal visit with Kjell at the observation site on 20 June 1984 and 20
September 1992.
21 Dan Danielsson, telephone interview with the Clas Svahn, 23 August 1997.
22 Knut Lindback, interview at his house by Clas Svahn in Lulea 9 May 1984.
23 Frideborg Tagebo, telephone interview by Clas Svahn, 13 June 1984.
24 Knut Lindback, interview at his house by Clas Svahn in Lulea 9 May 1984.
25 Beda Persson (married Johansson), telephone interview by Clas Svahn, 13
May 1984.
26 Frideborg Tagebo, telephone interview, 13 June 1984 and a visit to Lake
Kölmjärv together with her 19 September 1992.
27 Colonel Dahlgren to Lieutenant Bartoll, handwritten order, still kept by
Bartoll.
28 Roland Rynniger and Torsten Wilner, “Undersokning vid formodad
nedslagsplats for raketprojektil i Kölmjärv,” 3 September 1946; now kept at the
Swedish War Archives.
29 Rune Lindback, telephone interview, 11 May 1984.
30 Roland Rynniger and Torsten Wilner, “Undersokning vid formodad
nedslagsplats for raketprojektil i Kölmjärv,” 3 September 1946; now kept at the
Swedish War Archives.
31 Karl-Gösta Bartoll, interview at his home 21 September 1992.
32 Protocols from the meetings of 22 July and 29 July, kept at the Swedish War
Archives.
33 “Protokoll fort vid konferens vid FF betraffande prj over Sverige,” 5 August
1946; and “Konferens i FF den 10/8 1946 betr projektiler over Sverige,” 10
August 1946. Documents kept at the Swedish War Archives.
34 Karl-Gösta Bartoll, telephone interview, 21 May 1984 and a personal
interview at his house 21 September 1992.
35 Dagens Nyheter: “Rykte i Kalix, bomben funnen i Kölmjärvsjon,” 29 July
1946.
36 Norrbottens-Kuriren 30 July 1946 and several other newspapers.
37 Rocket Projectiles in Scandinavia, N9876/G, all Ghost Rocket files from the
Public Records Office could be found in the following files kindly sent to
Archives for UFO Research by Dr. David Clarke: FO 371/56988, FO 188/537,
FO 371/56951 and FO 188/572.
38 Public Record Office F01881537.
39 “Alleged rockets over Sweden,” report from the Naval Attaché in London
dated April 8, 1947, SC-7301.
40 Public Record Office F0371156951.
41 British Embassy in Stockholm to Foreign Office in London, telegram,
N9737.
42 Intelligence Report from the Naval Attaché in Paris 13 August 1946, NARA,
Serial 39-S-46 and Intelligence Report from the Naval Attaché in Stockholm,
NARA, Serial 36-S-46. Documents found by Jan Aldrich.
43 Edwin K. Wright to President Harry Truman, memorandum, subject: “Ghost
Rockets over Scandinavia,” 1 August 1946, FOIA request to the USAF
44 “Doolittle studerar bara bruket av var ekoradio,” Dagens Nyheter 14 August
1946.
45 Expressen: “Doolittle skall bara prata bensin - har hort om spokbomber,” 21
August 21 1946.
46 Curt Kempff to Arvid Eriksson, private letter, 30 August 1946, Swedish War
Archives, Forsvarsstabens Utrikesavdelning BI:1 Vol 1. In a despatch from the
British Charge d’Affaires in Stockholm dated 28 August 1946 he states that
when discussing this question with Colonel Kempff the Colonel indicated that he
had brought the subject up with Doolittle and Sarnoff and that they both said that
they had no knowledge of the subject. General Nordenskiold is not mentioned in
this text. But, as the Charge d’Affaires notes, there could be some confusion due
to Colonel Kempff’s “rather tortuous English.” Public Record Office FO
1881572.
47 David R. Saunders and R. Roger Harkins, UFOs? Yes!, Signet 1968, p. 54,
and David Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in America, Indiana University Press,
p. 36.
48 Just Cause, Number 24, June 1990, p. 8.
49 Hilary Evans and Dennis Stacy (eds): UFOs 1947-1997, Butler and Tanner
1997, pp. 35-42.
50 Kurt Larsson, telephone interview, 7 October 1984; Norrbottens-Kuriren:
“Ytterligare en rymdprojektil ner i Norrbottenssjo” 22 July 1946.
51 Ulla Axberg (Czajkowski), telephone interview, 6 May 1985.
52 “Rapport over verkstalld rekognosering i Gallivare 23/7,” Swedish War
Archives.
53 “Dagbok lor sokningsarbetena vid Vasaratrask i trakten av Gallivare tiden
12/8-19/8 1946”, Swedish War Archives.
54 Ingrid Hansson (married Zander), telephone interview, 16 September 1985.
55 E. E. Karlstrom, “Rapport angaende iakttagen raketliknande projektil,” 23
July 1946. Swedish War Archives.
56 Bertil Lindblad to Department of Air Defense 6 July 1946. Swedish War
Archives.
57 Henry Kjellson and Eric Malmberg , “Beskrivning av brannare eller
reaktionsaggregat anvant i tysk lufttorped och i tyska reaktionsbomben Hs 293,”
9 December 1944; Henry Kjellson and Eric Malmberg , “Redogorelse over den
tyska A4- raketen, V2,” 7 January 1946. Swedish War Archives.
58 A Secret draft made by Karl-Arvid Norlin 3 December 1946, now in the
Swedish War Archives.
59 Top Secret Memorandum for the President, 22 August 1946 made by the
National Intelligence Authority, kept at National Archives, Washington D.C.,
Admiral William D. Leahy files.
60 Karl-Arvid Norlin to Major Frank Cervell,3 December, with a draft of the
final report. Swedish War Archives.
61 VPM betraffande rymdprojektiler over svenskt territorium, December 1946.
Swedish War Archives.
62 “Investigation of Missile Activity over Scandinavia,” 9 September 1946,
prepared by A.D.I. (Science) and A.I.2. (g). Document found by Don Berliner at
Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum.

 Chapter 3: The Flying Disks and the United States
Describing the impact of the UFO phenomenon on the governmental agencies of
the United States, and their consequent response, is a difficult and complex task.
The task differs from that of the previous chapter due not only to Sweden’s
relatively small size and clear organization, but also because of the much greater
openness of Swedish authorities to researchers seeking historical documents. So,
with the United States’ situation, we must proceed with greater humility in our
analysis, saddled as we are with the confusion of those early days, and the
(frankly, still puzzling) lack of cooperation from the government in making those
documents available to historians now 60 years later.
Nevertheless, many things can be said which are helpful in understanding
what occurred. The primary focus should be the great and common concern of
all elements of our security apparatus with the potential of the Soviet Union to
create the atomic bomb and some missile system to deliver it. That worry lent
urgency to the whole ghost rocket episode. For example, when the great U.S.
wave of “disk” sightings occurred in June and early July of 1947, the Wright-
Patterson AFB Chief of Intelligence, Howard (Mack) McCoy, immediately
asked the Pentagon for their ghost rocket files. He received at least 44
documents, none of which have yet been released to modem investigators.1
Unidentifiable violations of U.S. airspace were potentially matters of the
highest importance. Because all elements of the security apparatus were
concerned with whether unidentified aerial objects were related to the Soviet
threat, all elements became involved. Early on, it was not only Army Air Force
business, but the Navy considered UFOs its business as well. We can remember
that most of our ghost rocket intelligence had come from naval Attachés in
places like Stockholm. That continued to happen wherever the Navy was the
primary agency on the spot. Also, if there were a possible connection to Soviet
spy mischief within the United States, the FBI was very anxious to get its agents
on the case.
Early in the post-war era our intelligence coordination ranged from primitive
to non-existent. People in high places scrambled to correct that fault. President
Truman was about to initiate a National Security Act that would, he hoped,
create a functioning Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to replace the inadequate
Central Intelligence Group (CIG).2 “Joint Committees” were established among
the military services. One such group, the Joint Committee for Communications
Electronics, was tasked to set up the JANAPs (Joint Army Navy Air Force
Publications) that would set policy for handling the transfer of information, etc.,
between the often non-cooperating services. We will address the JANAP system
in more detail later. Suffice it to say for now that the information transfer and
sharing situation in 1947 was poor, and left much to the personal judgments of
authority figures in the different agencies or even at sites (such as regional
offices or bases) within a single agency.
The part of the scientific community still involved with military and security
matters was equally concerned with Soviet weaponry and its potential. In fact,
every memoir and document points to the conclusion that, despite being
“scientists,” they were much more focused on what their work meant in security
terms, than on how it advanced some more idealistic vision of “science.” There
were three primary areas of focus: a) atomic energy, and attention to facilities
like Hanford in Washington, Oak Ridge in Tennessee, and a complex of areas in
New Mexico; b) aerotechnology and missiles, with attention to Wright Patterson
AFB. Muroc AFB, the California aerotech industry, White Sands Proving
Ground, and the rocket technology of Patuxent Naval Base in Maryland; c) the
lack of an “early warning” detection net (like the later DEW line of radar
stations). It was “atomics,” “missiles,” and “airspace violations.”
The list of background factors against which the flying disk wave burst onto
the scene could be quite long, but with these next two psychosocial matters, we
can stop and get to the phenomenon itself. The first of these might be called the
“Aura of the Scientist” in the post War era.
Of the many things that changed after WWII, one subtle but non-trivial
change was the collective attitude toward scientists held by ordinary citizens in
technologically developed countries. Respect was transformed into awe fretted
with fear. The reasons were not a mystery. Scientists made the Bomb, unlocking
and releasing the power of the atom on a previously unimaginable scale. They
made machines that flew faster and higher and had a seemingly limitless power
to destroy. They created devices that seemed to think, solving problems that
humans could not. It began to seem as if nothing was beyond their abilities. The
Bomb was made in just four years: what would be the next breakthrough, and
when would it come?
The image of the scientist was no longer that of a quirky loner working
obsessively in a garage or laboratory like a minor Frankenstein. The scientist
came to be pictured as a potentially dangerous intellectual stalking the corridors
of power in the Pentagon or the Deep Black laboratories of government
installations—a genius, perhaps naive, perhaps uncaring, but frightening when
empowered by government money and resources. Was the scientist the driver not
only of new technologies but new policies as well? Vannevar Bush, emblematic
of the new cadre of technocrats who applied wartime science to military and
economic matters, certainly applied thought so.3 In the future, only elite
scientists would be able to understand the complexities of the world sufficiently
to guide ordinary—and ignorant—citizens, politicians, and militarists according
to their best interests. Many people in government and the military detested that
elitist attitude, but they also had a grudging respect for these “egg-heads.” If they
made the Bomb, after all, what else might they create?
This emotional situation played into military psychology and undoubtedly had
a role in how the intelligence community viewed the UFO phenomenon in the
war years, but especially in the years just following. When UFO encounters were
“new,” no one could reasonably be expected to have a good handle on them.
They were simply mysteries, and, as far as the actual consequences of their
actions were concerned, apparently, benign. As the wave of sightings began in
the United States, military intelligence was caught off-balance—its “collections”
and “analyses” were still relatively rudimentary. During those first few years
following the war, very few government operatives could have known enough to
realize, that without a doubt, these things could not be foreign technology. We,
today, realize that the reports repeatedly exhibited characteristics far beyond the
point our technologies had reached at the time. Back then, this was much harder
to see. And, over it all was the new Aura of the Scientists—who could say what
“they” had achieved?
As a final “preliminary” observation, we, the American people, are, of course,
peculiar ourselves. As far as security matters are concerned, we are, and were,
rather obtuse. Barring Pearl Harbor, which occurred a great distance away,
America had not had a serious enemy incursion in living memory. We were not
exactly careless in 1947, but we had just won the war, and we were the Big Kid
on the block. This meant that we had a country in which the citizenry and the
security agencies were not always of the same mind. Add to this the radical
democratic character of the nation, and the result is a citizenry which thinks it
should be able to ask questions of any of its governmental agencies and get
“straight” answers, or tell those agencies to “buzz off’ unless given an extremely
clear reason not to do so. Those attitudes emboldened the American press to ask,
even demand, answers to what was, in the minds of security personnel, utterly
none of their business. And a speculation: we do not know what the general
opinion was (in the agencies) of the emotional stability of the public. Some
seemed to think the general populace were so naive and unhardened enough by
the real world as to be ripe for hysteria and panic. What then to say to these
people? How does one properly manage the news?
Although June 24 and the famous case of civilian pilot Kenneth Arnold flying
near Mt. Rainier is the date set in historians' minds for the beginning of the great
wave of unexplained reports in 1947, occasional encounters had been occurring
for some time. An example worth mentioning, because it became of interest to
the intelligence community, was the Richmond, Virginia, case of April 1, 1947.4
There were actually several incidents involving the U.S. Weather Bureau station
there in the spring of 1947. On at least three occasions, observers from the
station, after having released weather balloons and beginning to track them, had
seen another object in the sky which they could not explain. These were
mentioned by the trackers to co-workers and superiors, but whether any formal
notice was made is not known. In April, one of these personnel, Walter
Minczewski, saw another of the objects and placed his balloon-tracking
theodolite (a very manuverable sighting telescope sometimes equipped with a
camera and used to sight balloon and missile launches) on the mystery
“whatever-it-was.” Minczewski reported what he saw to his superiors and did
not pursue the issue any further. The Weather Bureau, some time after the UFO
wave began getting national publicity months later, apparently (we do not know
the specific transfer of information) dusted off the report and sent it to the Air
Force, whereupon it became part of the investigation.
What the Air Force's Project Blue Book files say about the case is this:
Incident No. 79 — April 1947, Richmond, Virginia.
A weather bureau observer at the Richmond Station observed on three
different occasions, during the six-month period prior to April, 1947, a
disc-like metal chrome object. All sightings were made through a
theodolite while making pibal [pilot balloon] observations.
On the last reported sighting, the balloon was at 15,000 feet altitude, the
disc followed for 15 seconds. It was shaped like an ellipse with a flat level
bottom and a dome-like top. The altitude and the speed were not estimated,
but the object, allegedly through the instrument, appeared larger than the
 balloon.
Another observer at the same station saw a similar object under
corresponding circumstances, with the exception that her balloon was at
an altitude of 27,000 feet and possessed a dull-metallic luster. There was
good visibility on days of observation. Report of this sighting was not
submitted until 22 July 1947.
AMC Opinion: There is no readily apparent explanation. If there were only
one such object, it seems amazingly coincidental that it would be seen four
times near the pibal of this station only. On the other hand, there would
have to be a great number of these objects to rule out coincidence, and as
the number of objects increases so do the chances of sightings by other
witnesses. Project Astronomer's Opinion: There is no astronomical
explanation for this incident, which, however, deserves considerable
attention, because of the experience of the observers and the fact that the
observation was made through a theodolite and that comparison could be
made with a pibal balloon. The observers had, therefore, a good estimate
of altitude, of relative size, and of speed - much more reliable than those
given in most reports.
This investigator would like to recommend that these and other pibal
observers be quizzed as to other possible, unreported sightings.

This incident (actually a series of incidents) concerned those persons in the
Air Force who did not want to believe that some kind of unknown aerial
technology was invading U.S. airspace. It is the first recorded instance of a
puzzling feature of the flying disk phenomenon in the United States: whatever
these things were, they were reported many times approaching balloon project
launches, hanging about for a while, and then rapidly leaving the scene. Because
the observers were just about the best-trained people to distinguish between
known objects in the skies, their testimonies were difficult to discount. The
Richmond sightings were brought up several times in official government
documents in the next two years.
But Mr. Minczewski and his colleagues were not thinking of flying disks in
April of 1947. They, and everyone else, began doing so in late June. The reason
was the aforementioned Mt. Rainier case of June 24.5 Kenneth Arnold, a private
pilot flying out of Idaho, was aloft in the vicinity of Mt. Rainier when he
witnessed the passage of nine, highly reflective, low-aspect (thin disk-like)
objects hurtling at roughly mountaintop elevation towards the southeast. He had
time to conduct several simple experiments to assure himself that he was not
seeing reflections, that the objects were moving very quickly, and also roughly to
judge speed and distance. It was an impressive sighting, especially given that
well over a dozen other reports came in from that Washington-Oregon area that
same day, and one seems to be very close in time, place, and detail.
We can only speculate as to why this particular case began an avalanche of
reports and press coverage. Part of the answer is Kenneth Arnold himself. He
was a deeply concerned patriot. He thought perhaps these things were not our
planes, and it was his duty to report all he could about them. He had a strong and
likeable personality, and the press responded to his story. But the Air Force did
not. For whatever reasons, the governmental agencies were not yet concerned.
Arnold himself got so upset about their lackadaisical behavior that he wrote a
lengthy letter to the Air Force over a week later pleading with them to pay
attention to his and other peoples' observations.6 We do not know why the
government was so slow to react. Perhaps it was just that Arnold, although a
pilot, was “just” a civilian. Even Mt. Rainier's general closeness to the Yakima
firing range and, to its east, the Hanford Atomic Works, rang no alarms. The
main cause of the slow reaction may simply be that our agencies were just very
poorly organized and uncoordinated in 1947.
Sometime between June 25 and July 4, the Air Force (until July 26, 1947,
called the Army Air Force) began to pay attention. On the 27th of June there was
a cluster of seven sightings in New Mexico.7 Most of these concerned a silver or
aluminum “streak” or a flash in the sky. One pilot described a ball of fiery blue,
which moved 2000 feet below his plane, and then disintegrated. Despite the
oddness of that report, the commander at White Sands Proving Grounds
announced that all observations were of one or more meteors. The next day
brought a report from four Air Force officers at Maxwell Field in Montgomery,
Alabama. The following is a reproduction of the document. The original
document is difficult to read but is included in the appendix:8

SUBJECT: Report of Unusual Celestial Phenomenon
TO: Assistant Chief of Staff, A-2
 Headquarters Tactical Air Command
Langley Field, Virginia

1. The following report is submitted concerning an unusual occurrence
observed by the following AAF Personnel at Maxwell Field, Montgomery,
Ala. On the night of 28 June 1947:
CAPT. WILSON H. KAYKO, 0-38841, Hq, TAC
CAPT. JOHN H. CANTRELL, 0-255404, Hq, TAC
1ST LT. THEODORE DEWEY, 0-2094172, Hq, TAC
CAPT. REDMAN, Randolph Field, Texas

2. At approximately 2120 Central time, a light, with a brilliance
slightly greater than a star, appeared from the West. It was first noted
above the horizon of a clear moon-light night, traveling in an easterly
direction at a high rate of speed. There was no audible sound and it was
impossible to determine the altitude, except that it appeared to be at great
height. It traveled in a zig zag course with frequent bursts of speed, much
like a water bug as it spurts and stops across the surface of water. It
continued until it was directly overhead and changed course 90° into the
south. After traveling in the above manner for approximately five (5)
minutes, it turned southwest and was lost in the brilliancy of the moon. At
2145 Central it was no longer possible to observe it.

3. A call was placed to Maxwell Field operations reference this
phenomena and inquiry made if any experimental aircraft were scheduled
for a flight in the vicinity. The reply was negative.

4. No plausible explanation is offered for the unusual action of this
source of light, which acted contrary to any aerodynamical laws. This
report is submitted upon request, in view of the many recent reports
reference unusual [?] aerial objects observed throughout the U.S.

5. Two of the above noted observers are rated pilots and the other two
 are air intelligence officers. All observers were cold sober.

This case did get the attention of the Pentagon, and was used in later estimates.9
Perhaps the reason is that it involved their own people.
A day later, three rocket experts employed by the Naval Research Laboratory's
Rocket Sonde Section (at White Sands, NM). and one of their wives, saw a
round, reflective object moving at great speed but undetermined height. It
“simply disappeared” as they watched. The rocket experts felt that it was neither
missile, plane, balloon, nor meteor, all of which were familiar to them.10
Admiral William Blandy, commander of the Atlantic Fleet, gave this puzzling
comment of the event: “I have no idea what they might be. I am very curious
about them and I do not believe that they exist.”11 An Army Air Force press
release said that citizens could be assured that the disks were not enemy secret
weapons, Army Air Force (AAF) projects, or “spaceships.” The Director of the
Naval Research Laboratory (the boss of the rocket experts above) quickly
concurred with the AAF statement. As an aside, the AAF stated that no saucer
had ever been detected by radar. That was false, at least since July 1.
At this moment a powerful authority figure, who would (several times) be
quoted scoffing at the “saucers” as nonsensical figments of our imaginations,
entered the drama. Brigadier General Roger Ramey, Alfred chief of the 8th Air
Force in Forth Worth, Texas, and his chief intelligence officer, Colonel Alfred
Kalberer, held a press conference.12 Referring apparently to Kenneth Arnold’s
sighting, but making a general comment, Ramey thought people “have been
seeing heat waves.” (This press conference was occasioned by another burst of
reports in Texas. Citizens all across the country were getting concerned and
writing to authorities—air bases, the FBI, the Pentagon, even political
representatives around this time.) Kalberer said nothing about heat waves, but
did label the flying disk business as “Buck Rogers stuff’ (i.e. fantasy), and
implied that Arnold probably just saw a few ordinary planes. To cast the Air
Force's statements into relief, an Oregon minister announced that the disks
proclaimed the End of the World. Neither form of emotionalism is, of course,
helpful in getting a handle on the problem.
The next day Kalberer was back at it again with an astronomer (Oscar
Monnig) in tow. The astronomer, freely moving outside his area of expertise,
said this was merely “an interesting study in human psychology.” In fact, he and
a Los Angeles colleague had laughed about Kenneth Arnold's report and
predicted a wave of hysteria. Kalberer was right behind him, mentioning the and
comparing flying Orson Welles disks to sea War serpents. of the I ^
Worlds hysteria That day, July 1, Hokkaido, Japan, the radar at Chitose AAB
“picked up a target at 16 miles, speed in excess of 500. This target split up into
two targets, each larger than a P-51.” A follow-up report has been reproduced on
page 36 for ease of reading.14
July 1 allows us to reflect a bit. The “external” (public) comments from the
military are already quite different from the “internal.” At least some elements of
the military are worried and serious, but they do not want the public to be. This
Janus-faced dichotomy is natural and understandable. Under the circumstances,
one might even call it honorable—people doing their duty as they honestly see it.
But it does not make for an accurate understanding of the situation for those on
the “wrong side of the mirror.” This “they do not need to know” philosophy,
which is one of the foundational operating principles of the intelligence
community, has been extremely successful in clouding the UFO issue up to the
present, especially as we have never had (in the U.S.) the type of information
releases that our Swedish colleagues have enjoyed.

Extract from 8 August 1947 MEMORANDUM FOR THE COMMANDING
GENERAL, ARMY AIR FORCES from Major General George McDonald,
Assistant Chief of Air Staff-2 [Intelligence], Subject: Top Supplement to Daily
Activity Report - ACAS-2. TS Control # 2-258,

(TS) II. ITEM OF CURRENT INTELLIGENCE INTEREST

The following information from the Far East Command Teletype
Conference, 7 August 1947, is supplementary to a previous item of interest. On 1
July 1947 a GCA operator at Chitose AAB, Hokkaido, reported that a target
traveling at a speed in excess of 600 mph was observed and further that the
target made four turns on the scope. The radius of the turns was one and one-
half miles. The target heading when contacted was 100 degrees at range of 16
miles north of Chitose AAB. The target made a 180 degree turn to a heading of 0
(zero) degrees and remained on this heading to a range of 28 miles. At this point
the target turned to the left to a heading of 240 degrees and traveled for a
distance of 6 miles. It then made a 180 degree turn to a heading of 60 degrees.
On this 60 degreee heading the target returned to its original point 28 miles
north of the Chitose base to a heading of 0 (zero) degrees and traveled out of
range.

(Evaluation: A-1; Completely reliable — Confirmed by other sources.)

A-2 COMMENT: This observation of target maneuvers establishes with
certainty that the target is not a weather or other natural phenomenon as we
now know natural phenomena. The only objects that could fit the observed facts
are aircraft.

Any aircraft traveling at this speed would have to be [?]jet-propelled fighter
type since there are no known bombers that could operate at this speed. One type
of U.S.S.R. jet fighter has an estimated speed of 525 knots (605 miles per
(Maj Farrier - Ext 71095)

Sometime near the beginning of July, Army Air Force Intelligence's
Collections Division in the Pentagon became organized on the flying disk
problem. The division's chief, Colonel Robert Taylor, and his main assistant, Lt.
Colonel George Garrett, made this a focus issue with Garrett's desk as the
collection point. Fairly quickly Garrett, with FBI liaison S.W. Reynolds, was
actively receiving and attempting to assess reports.15
July 4 produced a flurry of activity on the West Coast, particularly around
Portland, Oregon, where one incident, involving five police officers, impressed
the Army Air Force once it finally reached them with formal interviews.16 A
commercial aircraft encounter over Emmett, Idaho, also made national news,
mainly due to similarities to the Mt. Rainier case.17 Air patrols were launched to
see if any new encroachment could be purposefully confronted. No luck. Two
persons claimed to have photographed the things: Yeoman Frank Ryman of the
Coast Guard presented a bright spot on his film,18 and smalltime engineering
consultant, William Rhodes, offered two shots of a black, heel-shaped object.19
Authorities paid a great deal of attention, ultimately, to the latter. Atomic Energy
Commission chief David Lilienthal said the disks had nothing to do with any
governmental atomic project. He had no idea what they were but “was anxious
to know if any of them had fallen to the ground.”20
The wire services that day carried a press release from Wright-Patterson AFB.
It said the AAF was on the job and trying to resolve the mystery of the flying
disks. It said that Wright-Patterson’s engineering division had been specifically
asked by Chief of Staff Spaatz to do this. The release added that the AAF had
not found anything to confirm that the disks existed and they did not think that
the disks were guided missiles. The AAF felt confident as to the latter because it
had asked all its captured German technologists about it. The release ended with:
“As things stand right now, it appears to be either a phenomenon or the figment
of somebody’s imagination. 21 The fact that this sentence bordered on nonsense
did not seem to bother many people.
Over the next week the two most important aspects to the wave were that cases
continued to pour in, and the citizenry began to show greater concern. Both
factors put increased pressure on the authorities. There was a series of
observations at Muroc AFB and also at the Rogers Dry Lake area, which was
used for supersonic test flight work. One sighting was by aerotechnology legend
John Paul Stapp who later set high acceleration records riding rocket sleds on the
lakebed. Stapp said in his report: “I think it was a man-made object, as
evidenced by the outline and functional appearance. Its size was not far from 25
feet with a parachute canopy.”22 [Stapp had said that when he first spotted the
object, he thought it was shaped like a canopy. When it lowered and slowed, he
described its shape as oval with two projections on the upper surface]. “The path
followed by this object appeared as though it might have dropped from a great
height.”
Another case, which impressed the Pentagon, was the observation of Captain
James Bumiston and his wife at Fairfield-Suisun AFB in northern California.”
23 They described a highly reflective object moving at great speed. It had no
wings or noticeable protrusions, but was apparently not a sphere, as it seemed to
roll or wobble from side to side as it flew. It is interesting to note that this
sighting took place on July 6, but the report did not reach Garrett's desk at the
Pentagon until the 23rd of July. This is but one example of the lack of
information transfer between different commands at this early stage. The Muroc
cases, it appears, took even longer to arrive from California.24
The reports of cases had reached such a level (several “old” cases such as the
White Sands rocket scientists' observation were just now making the
newspapers) that many military personages were being asked about them.25
By July 12, the Pentagon’s urgency to obtain interviews with the best
observers had finally gotten through to the intelligence operatives scattered
about the country. On that day, agents questioned both Captain E. J. Smith (of
the Emmett, Idaho by both case)26 and Kenneth Arnold in different parts of the
Pacific Northwest.27 They were impressed by both men. One common feature in
the interviews was not expected: both Smith and Arnold were already concerned
about the ridicule that being a “flying object reporter” brought upon them.
Arnold said he probably would not report even if he saw a skyscraper fly past
him in the air. All these reports slowly made their way to Lt. Colonel Garrett's
desk.
Citizens around the country were increasingly curious, and many were
worried.28 As to why, an example would be an eleven-case burst on July 6 in
“Show Me” Missouri (eight cases were essentially simultaneous and by people
independent of one another). An hour later, a seventeen-case burst occurred in
Alabama. Military bases received calls and letters, as did the FBI. A young
congressman from Texas, Lyndon Johnson, was questioned by a constituent, and
followed up with a formal request for information from the Pentagon.29 This
started Johnson’s long-term curiosity about these unidentified flyovers. Garrett
was too busy, apparently, to reply to Johnson, so a Major wrote to him (through
Chief of Staff General Spaatz) that:

1. The Army Air Forces is conducting an investigation of the alleged
'flying disks.' Detailed statements of credible witnesses are being carefully
reviewed.
2. This investigation to date reveals no indication that the 'flying disks' are
new or unusual missiles or aircraft.30

This answer was prepared for Johnson on July 21. As we shall soon see,
statement “1” was true, and statement “2” was a lie.
It was a lie that was easy to believe, because it was backed by a growing set of
comments by the authorities. USAF Research and Development, in the person of
General Curtis LeMay, said the disks were nothing to worry about.31 The top
government scientist in the United States, Vannevar Bush, said the descriptions
did not fit anything known and so did not deserve to be taken seriously. “They
must be illusions.” Merle Tuve, the military bigwig scientist who developed the
proximity fuse for the atomic bomb, said if there were any developments going
on anywhere like this, he'd have heard of them.32 Therefore, by “logic,” they did
not exist. In the heart of the Pentagon, Lt. Colonel Garrett felt very differently.
One last case story and then we can peek into Garrett's mind: far western
Newfoundland, July 9-11.33 On three consecutive days, unidentified flying
objects were reported in this remote area of Newfoundland dominated by
Harmon Field. The reports sandwiching July 10 were viewed as supportive of
the middle one, which came from Harmon Field itself. On July 10, three civilian
aircraft mechanics were driving to work at the airfield when they spotted a disk
tearing a hole in the cloud cover. The object was described as having the
proportions of a wagon wheel and as being translucent—the later Air Force
report said “silver.” The disk emitted a bluish-black smoke trail that remained in
the air for some time. As it passed, it cut a swath through the clouds and seemed
to push them apart along a path 15 to 20 miles long. It continued on a straight
course until out of sight. One of the observers, Robert Leidy, retrieved a camera
once they got onto the field and took two pictures of the trail.
The local intelligence officer was quite excited by the case but, once again
showing the disorder of the times, did not immediately pass the case on to
Garrett at the Pentagon. A brief appeared in a Weekly Intelligence Digest on July
16,34 and Garrett finally got a report about a week later. Some discussion
apparently occurred as to how this case had been treated, and around the 28th of
July, an urgent order was received by the chief of intelligence of Air Materiel
Command at Wright-Patterson.35 Assistant Pentagon Director of Intelligence
General George Schulgen told Howard McCoy to send investigators
immediately to Harmon Field and to make a technical report. The investigators
were to report directly to the Pentagon afterward, not returning to Wright-
Patterson.
 We have an unusual document from this very moment. On the orders
transmission, McCoy had jotted a variety of notes demonstrating the pressure
caused by the urgency of these events. He asked, “What has Brentnall prepared?
What has Clingerman prepared?” Brentnall was Brigadier General Samuel
Brentnall, the chief of the “T-3” top-secret engineering technology division at the
base. Clingerman was Colonel William Clingerman, the number two intelligence
chief (after McCoy) in the “T-2” division. McCoy expected these two heavy
hitters to have ideas about this situation to add to the report-to-come. McCoy
also wrote that they must interview a captured German scientist now working at
Goodyear Corporation about Nazi capabilities with blimps or other lighter-than-
air machines, possibly acting as “pick-o-back” (piggyback) carryalls for small
disk craft on long flights. He also asked about certain jets and the trails they
would make. Whatever else went on, in about a day Clingerman and a top
assistant, Lt. Colonel E.G. Nabell, were flying to Newfoundland. There they
interviewed two of the observers and confiscated Leidy's film.36
This report, and the interviews finally coming in from the critical witnesses
like Arnold, E. J. Smith, James Burniston, and John Stapp, accumulated on
Garrett's desk and motivated him to try to assess the flying disk situation (what
the military calls “making an Estimate”) and pass the information up the chain of
command. (A copy is in this book’s appendix.) Around mid-August, Colonel
Garrett and FBI liaison S.W. Reynolds, who had been working closely with him,
felt they had gotten somewhat of a handle on the matter. But they were
extremely puzzled. The cases they were reviewing indicated an unusual aerial
technology of at least one type, and, through the first weeks of July there had
been intense pressure exerted down the chain of command (“from Topside”) to
get an explanation. But by late July and into August, that pressure had suddenly
evaporated. Why? Garrett and Reynolds felt they needed to know. The only
thing they could think of was that some exceptionally secret U.S. technology
was doing all this, and the news had finally been passed along to the Big Wheels
topside. If so, why were Garrett, Reynolds, and the FBI wasting their time?
Garrett prepared a condensed estimate stating his findings and requested that his
superior, Colonel Robert Taylor, and Brigadier General Schulgen ask all the
services if they knew about any project to explain all this.38
Included on the next page is Garrett's estimate as written for Taylor to pass on
to Curtis LeMay at Air Force Research and Development. It serves to indicate
the state of knowledge at that time.39

Flying Saucer Phenomena

Deputy Chief of Air Staff for Research & Development 22 August 1947

AC/AS-2, Air Intelligence Requirements Division Lt Col Garrett/nc/4544

1. From a detailed study of certain reported observations on the
flying saucers, selected for their veracity and reliability, it is
apparent that several aspects of their appearance have a
common pattern.
2. Before pursuing its investigation of these objects any further, this
Office requests assurance that no research project of the Army
Air Forces, at present being test-flown, has the following
characteristics and that it may therefore be assumed that recent
flying saucer “mystery” is not of United States origin:
a. Surface is metallic - indicating a metallic skin, at least.
b. When a trail is observed, it is a lightly colored blue-brown
haze, similar to a rocket engine’s exhaust. Contrary to a
rocket of the solid type, one observation indicates that the
fuel may be throttled, which would indicate a liquid
rocket engine.
c. As to shape, all observations state that the object is circular,
or at least elliptical, flat on the bottom and slightly domed
on the top.
d. Size estimates place it somewhere near the size of a C-54 or
Constellation as they would appear while flying at
10,000’.
e. Some reports describe two tabs located at the rear and
symmetrical about the axis of flight motion.
f. Flights have been reported containing from three to nine
objects, flying good formation on each other, with speeds
always above 300 knots.
 g. The discs oscillate laterally while flying along, which could
be snaking.

ROBERT TAYLOR 3RD
Colonel, Air Corps
Chief, Collection Branch
Air Intelligence Requirements Division
AC/AS-2

LeMay took a week to reply: no such AAF project existed.40 The other services
said likewise. This situation—unusual and unknown aerial technology incursions
coupled with the “silence from topside” —remains to this day a completely
unexplained behavior.
Whatever his puzzlement, Garrett now felt that he had a technical problem on
his hands: metallic disks of aircraft size, often flying in an oscillating manner
and occasionally emitting a powered trail. This had become not just an
intelligence collections issue but also an engineering analysis one. From this
point (and this had begun rather as a matter of course earlier), the Air Force saw
that it had a complicated task: a need for technology assessment wizards (that
seemed to mean Wright-Patterson) and a need for “security” assessments (which
seemed to mean the Analysis Division in the Pentagon). Robert Taylor and
George Garrett were Pentagon Collections Division; they no longer met either
vital criterion. So, in September, the flying disks problem shifted focus to these
two new sites, sites that were rarely “on the same page” as to their goals or
behaviors.
Information is incomplete about the personnel in the two locations and how
they functioned, but enough is known to draw the outlines of the picture. This is
especially true at Wright-Patterson. There, all the senior personnel were
aerotechnology engineers.41 National security was important, yes, but these
people wanted to find out what the disks were and how they worked. One
engineer who leaped at the chance to join the formative project was top airplane
designer, Alfred Loedding.42 Loedding knew viscerally that the disk-shape was
an eminently flyable one if the proper power and stable configuration was
obtained. He had, in fact, drawn up a patent for such a device.
Although headed by military personnel, the Wright-Patterson group was led
by three civilian engineers: Loedding, Albert Deyarmond (a military buddy of
Howard McCoy during WWII, recently retired from duty), and Lawrence
Truettner, a missiles expert.
At the Pentagon we know less about the details of what was going on, but the
attitude towards the disk problem was entirely different.43 Once the location of
the issue moved from the Collections Division to that of Analysis, the Pentagon
psychology became almost entirely focused upon its normal business: threat to
national security. Were these things threats? Were they Soviet? If not Soviet
threats, then what were they? Were they what they seemed, or something less: a
bogus display of a rudimentary technology meant to rattle the country? Or
hoaxes perpetrated by spies or sympathizers? Was this a psychological thing
more than a physical one? Was it, somehow, in the end, nothing at all? At the
Pentagon some very hardline people adopted a serious and vigilant attitude
towards the mystery. Brigadier General Ernest Moore had direct access to the
Director of Air Force Intelligence on these matters. Below him, in the Office of
Defensive Air analysis, a desk manned by Major Aaron (Jere) Boggs became the
alert center for flying disk policymaking. We would like to know more of the
Left: Albert Deyarmond mindset of these people at the time. We do not. An
example: a very Right: Howard McCoy highly placed colonel in the analysis
division, Edward Porter, over the next five years consistently expressed a hostile
attitude to the flying disks’ mere existence which bordered on raw
emotionalism.44 What was motivating him? We have no idea; but it made a
difference in the “corporate atmosphere” as to how the disk problem was
discussed.
The formal establishment of a flying disk project at Air Materiel Command
did not occur until January of 1948, but it had already happened in every other
way by September of 1947.
1. George Garrett had made his first estimate around late August using
sixteen or more cases (including Kenneth Arnold, Maxwell Field, White
Sands, EJ. Smith, Fairfield-Suisun, Harmon Field, etc.). This estimate was
distributed to military technology leaders who vowed that no such U.S.
device existed.45
2. The Pentagon then decided, in September, to send their information to
 Air Materiel Command (AMC) to get another expert view. AMC
Intelligence chief Howard McCoy convened a sort of think tank of the
base experts. McCoy brought together the chiefs of the Engineering
Division and several laboratories, plus the Air Institute of Technology, and
Colonel Clingerman, his own number two. On September 23 they wrote
back to the Pentagon (over General Nathan Twining's signature) that they
agreed with everything in Garrett's analysis.46 They led off with a new
assertion, which Garrett may have thought was so obvious that it did not
need saying: “The phenomenon reported is something real and not
visionary or fictitious.” (A copy of this document is available General
Nathan Twining in the appendix.)
3. Showing that plenty of conversation had gone on before sending this
famous Twining memo, arrangements were being made the next day for a
transfer of files from Garrett's office to A1 Loedding at AMC.47 Also
relevant was the coincident Pentagon demand to receive AMC's
information on Nazi aero technologists’ (the Horten Brothers)
experimentation with low-aspect (thin) roughly disk-shaped designs, plus
A1 Loedding's own disk-shape patent.48
At the Pentagon, missile expert Dr. Charles Carroll was plotting trajectories of
disk flights in an attempt to determine, as had been tried in Scandinavia, the
flight origins of these things 49 We do not have any information directly from
his study. At Wright-Patterson, AMC project personnel were tasked with
creating a list called “Essential Elements of Information” to be passed on to
intelligence operatives worldwide. This “what to look for” EEI was extensive
and written with possible ex-Nazi and Soviet technology in mind.50 A member
of McCoy's inner staff, Lt. Colonel Malcolm Seashore, hand-carried the EEI to
the European commands. By December, now-Director of Research and
Development, Curtis LeMay, wanted to know what was happening.51 What had
we learned? The Directorate of Intelligence responded with a new estimate
based on Garrett's and McCoy's earlier ones.52 (A copy of both the EEI memo to
Europe and the Directorate of Intelligence memo are included in the appendix.)
This December 1947 estimate was passed by the eye of Robert Taylor in
Collections but, in the new spirit of handling flying disk matters, was written by
personnel in the Analysis Division. Still, at this point it agreed with both Garrett
and McCoy. The estimate added new cases, especially radar trackings in the area
of Japan, and noted that many cases had “several observers [corroborating]
separate observations of the same phenomenon at the same time.” Thirteen case
briefs were given, with the writer particularly impressed by the second radar
observation at Fukuoka, Japan:

On 16 September, 1947, the same NEW radar at Fukuoka, Japan picked up
a target at 89 miles and tracked it in to 19 miles, where it faded. Speed was
840 to 900 miles per hour. This observation indicates use of a homing
receiver; fading at short range further indicates the possibility of good
radar evasion technique. The speed measurement is believed accurate,
since it was made by a good crew, through a 70-mile long track.

The memo went on to describe how experts had been quizzed across the board to
eliminate balloons, U.S. aircraft, missiles, meteors, or hoaxes from the core data.
And it continued to speak darkly of possible Soviet/Nazi technology.
One last thing should be described, as it relates to the problem of how to deal
with the rambunctious American public. Dave Johnson was an assistant editor of
a prominent Idaho newspaper, the Boise Idaho Statesman.53 He came to know
Kenneth Arnold, flew on patrols looking for the disks, and saw one himself on
July 9. Obviously he was excited about the things. Johnson pursued flying disk
stories as hard as any newsman, so when he heard in mid-November that the
USS Ticonderoga had seen and tracked two objects by radar, he immediately
wrote to General George Stratemeyer at Mitchell Field in New York (Air
Defense Command in that era) for information and answers to a lot of rather
pointed questions about what was occurring.
Stratemeyer saw this letter as a Pentagon problem, and sent it on. Johnson's
questions were partly about the disks, but also partly about procedure. Since this
latter had to do with Collections as well as public relations with possible
reporters, the Analysis Division ducked and handed the job to their UFO
veterans, Garrett and Taylor. On December 11, they wrote a memorandum to the
Air Force's Public Relations office outlining the proper answers to such
questions as Johnson's.54
Johnson asked eight questions. Because the Air Force reply was the first
formalized attempt at information management, we can give them a grade on it:

1. Have you come to a conclusion on the source of the disks? Ans: No.
(True.)
2. Are you convinced such objects are flying above the U.S.? Ans: No. (We
probably should give them a "false" here as all three military estimates
said differently.)
3. Have you investigated reports in the last 2 months? Ans: Yes. (True.)
4. Has Army radar ever tracked objects? Ans: No. (False.)
5. What is the form of your investigations? Ans: Interviews of responsible
persons. (Partly true, but recall photos, Carroll's plotting, etc.)
6. Is it possible disks are foreign? Ans: Yes. (True, given what they knew.)
7. Could they come from ex-Nazis in Spain (a current rumor)? Ans: Highly
improbable. (True.)
8. Should people still report? Ans: Yes. (True.)

We can give them five full and one half-truth for honesty, and 21/2 falses. About
70% in the pursuit of truth. As to doing their jobs, concerning national security
and population psychology management, we might give them straight A's.
As 1947 ended, the situation was that almost everyone involved thought the
disks were real, and agents were out worldwide looking for more information.
The Russian-Nazi “solution” seemed remote, but the only one thinkable. The
“spaceships” idea was in peoples' minds but hardly discussable. The theory that
this was some type of psychological warfare weapon of the Soviets had some
credibility. Far-Eastern radar cases were particularly troublesome.
As a sign-off note: even the Air Force had no concept of the extent of the
phenomenon. For 1947, their project knew of less than 100 cases.55 When UFO
researcher Ted Bloecher made a piecemeal survey of regional newspapers, he
found approximately 850.56 When UFO historian Jan Aldrich followed
Bloecher's lead years later, that number rose to over 3,000 incidents. And those
were just cases reported. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who was to become Air Force
astronomical consultant to the project in 1948, used to ask audiences in his
lectures to stand if they had seen a UFO. Many would. Then he would say: all
who did not report it, please sit down. Over 90% sat. Hynek said this was
common. However many cases are read in governmental or news publications,
or civilian research files, there are nine times more that are hidden.58

Roswell
Because the “Roswell event,” the notion that the Army Air Force retrieved a
crashed flying disk or parts of one during the summer of 1947, has become so
fascinating for everyone interested in UFO phenomena (whether they credit the
story or not), we cannot fail to mention it.
There are a few things about the event which no one denies. In the first week
of July 1947, the military commander of Roswell Army Air Force base, Colonel
William Blanchard, announced to newspapers that the base had “come into the
possession of a flying disc.” The disk was recovered from “a ranch in the
Roswell vicinity” by an intelligence officer, Major Jesse Marcel, who retrieved it
after he visited the ranch with a detail from the base. Roswell AAF learned of
the object when the ranch caretaker informed the local sheriff, George Wilcox.
The sheriffs office notified the airbase. The story flew from local papers onto the
national stage: “RAAF captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region”
proclaimed the headline.59
It is also undeniable that within a few hours, Air Force higher command in the
person of General Roger Ramey, commander of the Eighth Air Force in Ft.
Worth, Texas, released a second story: the “flying saucer” was just an ordinary
weather balloon and radar reflector. This counter-story was punctuated by a
press conference featuring an embarrassed Major Marcel posing with an
ordinary piece of balloon debris. This time the papers blared: “Ramey Empties
Roswell Saucer.”60
That is how the Roswell incident remained for a long time, an item of folklore
forgotten even by the UFO community. Over the years, civilian UFO researchers
received a steady trickle of unsupported claims that there had been a crash,
usually located in “the late 40’s” and “the Southwest desert,” most often and
more specifically, New Mexico. But few gave the stories credence.
The next undeniable element of the event occurred in the late 1970s. An older
and apparently irritated Major Jesse Marcel went public with his side of the
story. It is generally agreed that he was indeed the Major Marcel at the base who
had been detailed to pick up the debris and called to Ft. Worth to pose with the
weather balloon. Marcel had been chewing on this embarrassment for more than
forty years and wanted to get it off his chest. His uncorroborated story is
different in many details from General Ramey’s earlier explanation. His story
involved no disk, only debris, but unusual debris with odd characteristics.
Marcel said it was easily distinguishable from the sorts of things in ordinary
balloons, including the one with which he was forced to pose by Ramey.
Essentially Marcel accused the Air Force of covering up the truth, and he was
angry at being made a scapegoat.
UFO researchers wondered what, if anything, of Marcel’s story was true? The
community split into factions that advanced different conclusions. Meanwhile,
increasing numbers of people from the Roswell area came forward with tales
that mostly supported Marcel.61 Some additional details came from other
military sources. Some were hoaxes or lies; some seemed legitimate. The story
became large and complex, difficult to track, with dozens of disparate elements.
No author or researcher has presented a single, clear, understandable analysis of
all essentials.
As the story evolved into the late 1980s and 1990s, the preponderance of
“evidence” was (as usual with UFO reports) in the form of witness testimony.
All of it taken together suggested that something unusual had left widely
scattered debris on a ranch north of Roswell. While dismissed as inconsequential
by many persons heavily invested in interpreting this event, that conclusion is
not trivial.62 Regardless of the real nature of the debris, it is significant that
there is a consensus the Air Force did cover something up, created a bogus press
conference, and embarrassed the base’s leading intelligence officer. So whatever
happened on the debris field must have been sufficiently serious to require a
“Big Lie” to cover it.
Readers may decide for themselves. Was the Roswell event a secret Air Force
project, a weapon, a Soviet device, an alien spacecraft—or a big X? To assess
the various testimonies is beyond the scope of this book, and more importantly,
government documents related to this case are conspicuously absent or of
dubious authenticity, and this text is concerned only with a well-documented
historical narrative.

Notes
1 Letter, H .M. McCoy, Colonel, Chief of Intelligence to Chief of Staff, United
States Air Force, attention: Lt. Col. George Garrett, 23 January 1948; and reply,
Douglass W. Eiseman, Lt. Colonel, Executive, Air Intelligence Requirements
Division to Commanding General, Air Materiel Command, attention MICA (sic:
should be MCIA for McCoy’s chief of Intelligence Analysis, Colonel William
Clingerman).
2 Michael J. Hogan, A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the
National Security State 1945-1954, 2000.
3 Vannevar Bush, Modern Arms and Free Men, 1949.
4 SIGN microfilm Roll 2; also J. Allen Hynek, “Final Report, Project 364,”
Appendix B in Unidentified Flying Objects: Project Grudge (henceforth
“Grudge report;” and James McDonald archives, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
5 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
6 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
7 Grudge report; also, Ted Bloecher, Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, 1967.
8 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
9 AFBIR-CO (Pentagon designation of Lt. Col. Garrett), “Flying Disks” (an
analysis of 16 cases), 30 July 1947, FOIA request to FBI; also, Robert Taylor
(written by Garrett) to Deputy Chief of Air Staff for Research and Development,
subject: “Flying Saucer phenomena,” 22 August 1947, and George McDonald
(written by Lt. Col. Thomas) letter to Director of Research and Development,
subject: “Analysis of ‘Flying Disc’ Reports,” 22 December 1947, FOIA request
to USAF.
10 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
11 Newspaper report of 1 July 1947 (Roswell Morning Dispatch, Roswell, New
Mexico), as quoted in Loren Gross, UFOs: A History, supplemental notes for
1947, June 24-July 6, 2000. Because of the value of Loren’s chronicle of directly
quoted primary sources, we will refer to his work often. For shorthand, these
citations will read: “Gross,” followed by the date of the chronicle volume or
supplemental notes.
12 Gross, supplemental notes (1947, June 24-July 6), Matador Texas Tribune, 3
July 1947.
13 Hadley Cantril, The Invasion from Mars, 1940.
14 Major General George McDonald memorandum for the Commanding
General, Army Air Forces. Subject: Top Secret Supplement to Daily Activity
Report - ACAS - 2. TS Control # 2-258. 8 August 1947.
15 This will be a rather generic reference, but a necessary one. There will be
occasions where there are statements made in the text which relate to subtle or
complex “organizational” matters, and, sometimes even, “apparent attitudes.”
Particularly with regard to the Pentagon, there is seldom a simple definitive
reference document for things such as this. The understandings expressed in the
text come from reading the bulk FOIA releases, and piecing together “who was
doing what” and what their tendencies were in handling their parts of the UFO
issue. In the case of Taylor, Garrett, and Reynolds at this point in the text, the
facts as stated are quite clear from documents obtained from the FBI through the
FOIA, as well as reading Taylor’s and Garrett’s work, passim, in the documents
from the Air Force Intelligence Directorate in the Pentagon.
16 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
17 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
18 Bloecher, Section IV, 3-4.
19 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
20 Gross 1947, Denver Colorado Post, 4 July 1947.
21 (Newspaper story) Dateline: Wright Field, Ohio, 3 July 1947, San Francisco
Examiner, 4 July 1947.
22 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
23 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
24 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1.
25 Newspaper story: “Disks Discounted: Blandy Wants to See Disks before his
Eyes,” New York Times, 8 July 1947; Newspaper story: “Army says what Disks
are NOT,” New York Times, 8 July 1947.
26 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1, Frank M. Brown, 4th AF, “Memorandum for the
Officer in Charge,” 16 July 1947.
27 SAC San Francisco to D. M. Ladd, office memorandum, subject: “Flying
Disks,” 28 July 1947, FOIA (FBI).
28 Grudge, and Bloecher.
29 Lyndon Johnson to the War Department, 8 July 1947, FOIA (USAF).
30 Lt. Colonel Douglass W. Eiseman to AGAO, memorandum, subject:
“Information Regarding the Flying Disks,” 21 July 1947, FOIA (USAF).
31 Gross 1947, Chicago Daily Tribune, 7 July 1947.
32 Gross 1947 Supplement: July 7 to July 10, Amarillo Times, 10 July 1947.
33 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
34 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2 (In Harmon Field file), extract from Weekly
Intelligence Summary, ATC, 16 July 1947, “Flying Objects Reports Summary.”
35 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2 (In Harmon Field file), untitled copy of telegram
concerning Harmon Field case upon which Colonel McCoy is noting his
immediate action needs in response to the notice.
36 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2 (In Harmon Field file), W. R. Clingerman and E.
G. Nabell, Intelligence Investigation Report, 1 August 1947.
37 E. G. Fitch to D. M. Ladd, office memorandum, subject: “Flying Discs,” 19
August 1947, FOIA (FBI).
38 General George F. Schulgen to Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 5
September 1947, FOIA (FBI).
39 Lt. Colonel George Garrett, apparent draft summary, “Flying Disks,” 30 July
1947, 7 pp., FOIA (FBI); and Robert Taylor to Deputy Chief of Air Staff for
Research and Development, memorandum, subject: “Flying Saucer
Phenomena,” 22 August 1947, FOIA (USAF).
40 Curtis LeMay to Air Intelligence Requirements Division, note, subject:
“Flying Saucer Phenomena,” 29 August 1947, FOIA (FBI and USAF).
41 Blue Book microfilm Rolls 1, 2, et al. passim; plus Ruppelt.
42 Michael D. Hall and Wendy A. Connors, Alfred Loedding and the Great
Flying Saucer Wave of 1947, 1998.
43 FOIA request to the USAF, documents passim; plus Ruppelt; and Michael D.
Swords, “Project Sign and the Estimate of the Situation,” Journal of UFO
Studies, N.s. vol. 7, 2000: 27-64.
44 Edward J. Ruppelt (file of character descriptions of prominent figures that he
knew in Air Force intelligence), File #R022 of the Ruppelt archive (currently
held for the UFO Research Coalition by Michael D. Swords).
45 Garrett draft, FOIA (FBI).
46 Lt. General N. F. Twining (actually written by Colonel McCoy) to
Commanding General, Army Air Forces, Washington, DC, memorandum,
subject: “AMC Opinion Concerning ‘Flying Discs’,” 23 September 1947, FOIA
(USAF).
47 Lt. Colonel Douglass W. Eiseman to Commanding General, Air Materiel
Command, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio, memorandum, subject: “Reported
Sightings of Flying Discs,” 21 September 1947, FOIA (USAF). There are, in
fact, a series of sparsely written documents from the beginning of September
through the 24th that speak of information exchange, mainly from the Pentagon
to AMC.
48 H. M. McCoy to Commanding General, Army Air Forces, Washington, DC,
memorandum, subject: “Flying Disk,” 24 September 1947, FOIA (USAF).
49 H. M. McCoy to Commanding General, USAF, memorandum, 18 November
1947, FOIA (USAF).
50 Headquarters European Command to Counter Intelligence regions,
memorandum, subject: “Essential Elements of Information,” 20-28 October
1947, FOIA (USAF).
51 George C. McDonald to Director of Research and Development, subject:
“Analysis of ‘Flying Disc’ Reports,” 22 December 1947, FOIA (USAF).
52 Gross 1947, 73-74; and supplements, passim.
53 Dave Johnson to Lt. General George E. Stratemeyer, Air Defense Command,
Mitchell Field, New York, telegram transcript or letter, November 18 1947,
FOIA (USAF).
54 Robert Taylor to Director of Public Relations, memorandum, subject: “Flying
Discs,” 11 December 1947, FOIA (USAF).
55 Grudge report; Blue Book microfilm Rolls 1 and 2.
56 Bloecher.
57 Jan Aldrich personal communication to Michael Swords.
58 J. Allen Hynek to Michael Swords, personal communication. Note by
Michael Swords: “I attended a lecture by Dr. Hynek in which he did this very
thing, and he spoke to me about how common this behavior was at later times at
the Center for UFO Studies.”
59 Roswell Daily Record, 8 July 1947.
60 Roswell Daily Record, 9 July 1947.
61 Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt, UFO Crash at Roswell, 1991.
62 Karl T. Pflock, Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe, 2001.

 Chapter 4: A Formalized UFO Project

The Status of the Problem
Going into 1948 and the formal working of Project SIGN, quite a bit of
“orientation” towards the flying disk problem was established in Air Force
intelligence officers’ minds, at least in the Pentagon and at Wright-Patterson’s
Air Materiel Command (AMC). After all, four high-level opinions about flying
disks had already been circulated. The first was Lt. Colonel Garrett’s estimate in
August of 1947. The second was Colonel Howard McCoy’s famous Twining
memo in September. A third was an update of the Twining memo by McCoy in
October. The fourth was a Pentagon response (over Director of Intelligence
George McDonald’s signature) to General Curtis LeMay in December. This
series of four opinions or estimates in five months attests to the fact that these
disks were a problem in peoples’ minds.
Within the estimates there was a uniformity of detail. “Flying discs, as
reported by widely scattered observers, probably represent something real and
tangible.” The only uncertainty regarding the “probably” was that no one had
been able to retrieve any piece of the things. Other than that, the widely
scattered-ness (by which the estimators meant “independent” and, therefore,
objective observations), and the quality of their military, civilian pilot,
engineering and science-trained witnesses, put the reality of the phenomenon
nearly beyond doubt. The facts of a new formal project plus an ongoing analysis
desk (one at AMC and one at the Pentagon) testify that few thought this was
nonsense.
As far as the source of the phenomenon was concerned, the Air Force came
into 1948 thinking that the core cases were not our own devices, but, given the
lack of trust between the services, one could not say for sure. The USSR was a
better candidate, but that did not seem too likely either, even though it had to be
viewed as the top priority suspect. Other “agencies” verged from the unlikely (an
unsuspected and apparently de novo natural phenomenon) to the unthinkable
(extraterrestrial craft). All these ideas and worse were in the mix early in the
UFO game. Because the Soviet theory was primary, many intelligence
operations felt that they rightfully should be involved. It is clear that both the
Navy and the Central Intelligence Agency saw reason to stay alert to aspects of
the phenomenon, and as we will see, did not quite trust the Air Force to do the
best job.
Within the Air Force’s (formerly the Army Air Corps) intelligence
community, the newly declared independent force was trying to sort out its
structures. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents with information
from this era show a surprisingly frequent change of chains-of-command
reporting channels within the Pentagon and also at Wright-Patterson. Consequent
alterations of the “alphabet soup” codes for offices and projects make unraveling
what was going on difficult for the historian, and had to create at least a bit of
confusion in terms of inter-office communications at this time.
The diagrams on the following two pages depict Pentagon and AMC channels
of reporting as they appeared during one of the iterations of structure for the time
period 1948 through 1949. They are included because they may indicate to some
readers how it could be possible that different personnel, allegedly working
within the same intelligence community, could end up working in opposition to
one another.
At the Pentagon, General Hoyt Vandenberg had taken over from Carl Spaatz
as Chief of Staff, and, as is usual, Spaatz’ Director of Intelligence (George
McDonald) was relieved, being replaced by General Charles Cabell. Just as
important for our topic, although the Collections Branch of Intelligence
Requirements still received and passed on UFO reports, the center of policy-
making activity shifted to

Organizational Chart, USAF Intelligence, ca. 1948

The Pentagon’s Directorate of Intelligence was undergoing a reorganization in
1947 1952. Much change also occurred in the executive positions of the Air
Force Office of Intelligence (AFOIN), AFOAI and its branches. The chart below
is representative of the type of structure and staff as it was in the 1948 Project
SIGN period.

FIXME: missing chart.

the “other side” of Air Force Intelligence, the Air Force Office of Air
Intelligence (AFOAI), the analysis-and-response area.1 Just as the diagram is
split, we know that there was at least a tendency for Pentagon attitudes towards
the flying disk phenomenon to be split, as well. Air Force Office of Intelligence
Requirements (AFOIR) personnel like Garrett and Taylor had very few doubts
about the concrete reality of the objects. They had been talking to and reading
first-hand reports of witnesses. AFOAI tended to have more skepticism, perhaps
putting more distance between themselves and what might be viewed as
subjective elements in the reports. People like Moore and Boggs, and Colonel
Porter (who does not appear in the abbreviated diagram) were on that side of
things.2 AFOAI was also the more paranoiac of the intelligence elements vis-a-
vis the Soviet threat, as concern for that danger was their main goal.
At AMC, the situation is clearer and, for the most part, simpler. AMC’s T-2
(Intelligence) Division had an existing structure into which Project SIGN fitted
nicely as a special project. The military chain- of-command stack was in place
and all that was needed was to assign an executive officer (Captain
Organizational Chart, USAF Air Materiel Command, c. 1948

Like the USAF Directorate of Intelligence, the Intelligence Division at AMC
went through major restructuring in 1947-1952. The partial organizational chart
below is generally accurate for 1948, the year that Project SIGN formally
existed.

FIXME: missing chart.

Robert Sneider) and a few primary personnel.3
After that, the situation was very fluid. Unlike the Pentagon, engineers and
technical support people from all over the T-2 division (and occasionally even T-
3) could be, and were, utilized as need arose. One might regularly see chiefs of
other branches of the division involved in cases and communications, as well as
people right up to Clingerman’s and McCoy’s offices. The AMC situation
involved a variety of engineering talent rather enthusiastically scrambling about
looking for an engineering solution. It should not be a great surprise that two
such groups (AMC T-2 and Pentagon AFOAI) having such different approaches,
and consequently, closeness to the phenomenon, would come to dramatically
different views.

The early months of 1948
One must begin with the famous Mantell case.4 Despite an increasingly small
possibility that we do not know exactly what happened here (i.e. a heroic pilot
making a serious error chasing a top-secret high altitude balloon, and crashing
his plane and killing himself), the case not only led off the year (January 7), but
for a variety of reasons caused great concern within the military and without.
Thomas Mantell, an experienced and decorated pilot, was flying in a four-
plane flight of Kentucky National Guard P-51s, when they were directed to an
unidentified object high over the Kentucky-Tennessee border. The three other
pilots did not pursue with the same vigor as did Mantell. For whatever reasons,
Mantell believed that he could close on the object. He seemed to feel that the
thing was at about his level and going at only half his speed. Technical Sgt.
Quinton Blackwell was duty officer in the control tower at Godman Field, KY,
when the incident occurred. Below are his memories of some of the squawk talk,
as he reported them two days later:5

Mantell: [sees the object] "ahead and above, I'm still climbing."
Wingman: "What the hell are we looking for?"
Mantell: "The object is directly ahead of and above me now, moving about
half my speed."
Mantell: "It appears metallic object of tremendous size."
Mantell: "I'm still climbing; the object is above and ahead of me, moving
at about my speed or faster. I'm trying to close for a better look."

Mantell’s curiosity and sense-of-duty had gotten the better of him. That was his
last transmission, leading analysts to believe that he blacked out and rode his
plane down to a deadly crash near the Kentucky and Tennessee border.
Mantell’s crash could not help but attract both military and civilian attention.
A full air accident investigation took place, as well as a UFO investigation by
Alfred Loedding out of the AMC. For our purposes, it was Mantell’s third
comment (“metallic object . . . tremendous size”), which caused a furor.
In a highly organized world this case could have been solved quickly. But that
was not who we were. Neither at the Pentagon nor at AMC was there the facility
to simply know of the early USN secret balloon project launches out of Winzen
Research in Minnesota and plot the likely path of one particular errant balloon.
The “tremendous size” appearance would have supported a balloon explanation,
and the metallic sheen might easily have been the sun glinting off the slick
polyethylene surface. But no one could put the pieces together. AMC did not
know what to make of this and listed the case “unidentified.”6 But the Air Force
ultimately put the story out that Mantell “chased” Venus.7 No one in the project
believed that, and calculating Venus’s position proved it impossible. This was an
early example wherein loo se-but-authoritative sounding pronouncements got the
Air Force into more difficulties than they solved, and began a growing suspicion
of “authority’s” opinions that in many circles resulted in complete distrust.
Other than the Mantell fiasco, January was relatively calm. Agents in Finland
reported some incidents, raising the “ghost rockets” concerns again.8 Once
SIGN was officially operating on January 22, Howard McCoy requested the
Pentagon’s entire ghost rocket “collection” the next day.9 Maybe it was because
of the Mantell publicity, but the elite Joint Research and Development Board,
headed by Vannevar Bush, felt motivated to give its assessment of flying disks as
follows:

A spokesman said the board experts dismiss the flying saucers as a mirage
induced by mass self-hypnosis. The scientists declare that the discs were
nothing more than optical illusions and say that no evidence ever has been
found to show that the saucers were either manmade or products of
nature... Army and Navy experts on such matters as guided missiles,
rockets, and buzz bombs, have closed their books on the flying saucers.10

Since we know that a good bit of this “authoritative pronouncement” is not
true, a question naturally arises: what was motivating people like this to say such
things? These were highly intelligent men, and serious ones (despite the almost
complete nonsense of the phrase “a mirage induced by mass self hypnosis”).
Perhaps, because they were all physicists and engineers, we should forgive them
their nonsense when they pontificate outside their field. But no. Error is error.
But why go to press at all, if it is none of the Joint Research Development
Board’s business? The answer almost certainly must be: they thought it was their
business, and that was the business of national security. By debunking the disks
to the American public, even nonsensically, they had to believe that they were
doing something useful. We do not know their reasoning. We do not have the
necessary documents. The easy guess is that they believed that their opinion
would reduce the excitability of the average citizen worrying about mysterious
things overhead. Of course, as we have been and will be seeing, the people
actually studying UFOs at AMC thought completely differently from the R&D
Board about the phenomenon.
Whatever the R&D Board may have thought they were doing, it did not seem
to work. A growing segment of the population was becoming interested in
UFOs, as was shown not only by letters to authorities and newspapers, but also
to science fiction magazines. A member of Colonel McCoy’s staff showed him
such a magazine and he surprisingly noted that people were sending them reports
that the Air Force was not getting.11 He then requested that AMC be apprised of
an upcoming article announced in the magazine, and the Pentagon sent an officer
(actually a member of the CIA) to quiz the owners of Ziff-Davis Publishing in
Chicago—the producers of the classic science fiction magazine Amazing
Stories. The response that McCoy got from the agent was loaded with sarcasm.
The materials in the magazine were useless, and the alleged UFO article had
been dropped in favor of a piece about a big red spider that invades Earth from
Mars. All that was correct. Outlets like Amazing Stories were useless in solving
the flying disk mystery. What they did show, however, was what was going on in
the minds of some of the public. In that same April 1948 edition was not only
the monstrous invasion from Mars, but also a pictorial representation of flying
saucers in ancient times from the Angkor Wat temple complex in Southeast Asia,
and a story about a Mexico wandering prospector coming across a crashed disk
in the New Mexico desert.12 The pictured craft was a nice “lifting body” à la
Alfred Loedding or the Horten Brothers. Reacting to the welling up of public
interest, the editor of Amazing Stories was already in the process of creating
FATE Magazine, which featured UFOs on its first (Spring 1948) cover, and
trumpeted the phenomenon for years thereafter.13 The American media was
getting very interested in the saucers, which gave the Air Force a tricky
management problem. The phenomenon did not help matters by its
unwillingness to go away.
1. On January 9 a commercial pilot watched an intensely blue fireball
 slowly approach, pass by, turn, and blink out. Shades of the foo fighters,
albeit the wrong color.14
2. From March 5 through March 9, in Bakersfield, California, observers
saw repetitions of some sort of light phenomena, which seemed to
disintegrate or disappear. Air Force investigators said that it was similar to
“star shell” bursts, but no such activities were known to have gone on.15
3. The so-called “Rhodes photos” from July of 1947 finally arrived at
AMC and were subjected to tests. Colonel James Beam reported very
positively on the pictures (“true photographic nature,” “image exhibits a
‘tail’ [that is, a proper photo distortion for the type of camera used],” and
the observer’s report of seeing a canopy on the disk was within visual
acuity of the human eye). The tone of the analysis was that Project SIGN
thought that they had a real photo of a somewhat distant, large object,
which looked to them, disturbingly, like a thin disk lifting body with a
scooped rear section.16

Colonel McCoy continued to try to get more help for the project. He
requested a news clippings service in the hope of getting better leads. He
requested that some, if not all, Air Force bases have stand-by interceptors that
could be quickly launched to encounter the objects. Almost everything he asked
for was rejected by offices in the Pentagon interested more in penny-pinching
than in base requests. If you did not have support from very high up the chain-
of-command, you did not get new funding. At least Air Defense Command
ordered all bases to send information on unidentified objects to Wright-
Patterson.17
Early in April, there were reports of a large, “flying wing” object in the
Philippines, and a pair of violently maneuvering flattened balls seen by military
balloon observers at Holloman AFB in New Mexico.18 Since unknown
“balloons” do not fool professional balloon observers, the Holloman case
flummoxed the analysts. Project SIGN felt that this was important enough to
make an on-site appearance, so Colonel Beam and Alfred Loedding went to New
Mexico.19 Nothing was resolved on this visit, but later Beam made a second
trip, at which time all three observers of the two objects were available for an
extended interview. All emphatically denied that the “bogies” were other
balloons, despite that being the only imaginable hypothesis. In the untrained
writing that is typical of military reporters when writing these documents, Beam
wrote:

All agreed on the following: the object was very high, moved faster than
any known aircraft, possessed a rounded, indistinct form, and disappeared
suddenly rather than fading away in the distance. It was definitely not a
balloon and apparently not manned judging from the violent maneuvers
which were performed at a high rate of speed.20

Loedding and Beam used the Holloman investigation as an excuse for a side-trip
to Phoenix, Arizona, for an interview of William Rhodes, who took the scooped
disk photos. They came away from the experience with a good feeling about
Rhodes’ character and sincerity, despite doubts by earlier agents.21 For
Loedding, these pictures were important indicators that his theories about thin-
disk lifting bodies were on the right track. For Beam, perhaps, it was an
indication that something like German WWII technology was flying. (In his
February memo about the photo analysis to SIGN, he had included a picture of a
German model not unlike the Rhodes object).
On April 23, Colonel McCoy, in a letter written by Beam, reported on SIGN’s
progress to Chief of Staff Vandenberg and Director of Intelligence Charles
Cabell.22 Almost the entirety of the letter speaks of the objects as aerial
technology with powered, maneuvered flight, distinct shapes, and high speed to
hovering capability, occasional exhausts and sound. The Rhodes photos were
featured alongside concerns about Nazi lifting body experiments. The only non-
harmonious note was sounded by Dr. Irving Langmuir.
Langmuir was a Nobel Prize-winning physical chemist who worked at
General Electric’s research laboratories and was a member of the Air Force’s
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). Why he was asked to evaluate a topic so far
out of his field is unknown, but when one reads available documents it is
obvious that much of the military piecework activity was taking place
opportunistically and on the cheap. It may be that Alfred Loedding was passing
nearby Schenectady, NY, and “dropped in” on his way elsewhere. Whatever
happened, Langmuir was the wrong person to ask. Both he and Loedding agreed
on the general tenor of this “consultancy”: Langmuir listened to the description
of what SIGN was doing, looked very briefly at the Rhodes photos, decided they
must be blowing pieces of paper, and dismissed the subject. Loedding and
Langmuir came away from this encounter at cross purposes. Here is the formal
document’s summary:

Representatives from this Headquarters visited Dr. Irving Langmuir of the
Research Laboratories, General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY to
discuss Project "SIGN." It was the opinion of this scientist that present
available data does not encompass sufficient information to enable a
positive identification to be made. Dr. Langmuir was reluctant to consider
the so-called "flying discs" as a reality. However, it is believed at this
Headquarters that it is possible to construct a low aspect radio aircraft
that would duplicate many of the appearance and performance
characteristics of reported "flying discs." Experts have agreed that this
would be possible through the intelligent application of boundary layer
control.23

The summary expressed Langmuir’s views mildly. He was one of the earliest of
a type of scientist who would be encountered all-too- often throughout the
history of this field: brilliant or not, but having Dr. Irving Langmuir a nearly
iron-clad boundary between things which were appropriate to be researched and
contemplated vs. things which were, “obviously irrational.” Langmuir and those
around him (Harvard astronomers Harlow Shapley and Donald Menzel, Office
of Naval Research nuclear physicist Umer Liddel, and British Astronomer Royal
H. Spencer Jones are prominent examples of this mindset.) believed that certain
subjects were not only ridiculous but actually dangerous, as they led a gullible
public into believing irrational things and rejecting Science. Langmuir
nicknamed the pursuit of such subjects “Pathological Science,” and the whole
treatment of such matters by allegedly objective personalities was, and remains
to this day, shockingly emotional.24 Therefore, both in terms of training in the
proper field and intellectual inclination, Langmuir was perhaps the worst
“expert” SIGN could have consulted. The chairman of the SAB, Dr. Theodore
von Karman, would have been a much better choice: an aero-technical genius
who had personally investigated the Coanda Effect to give lift to the disk-shaped
bodies.25 But von Karman was in Southern California and, perhaps, no one was
opportunistically heading his way.
As SIGN moved into May, Langmuir’s nay-saying appeared to be having
no effect. Despite the “aura of the great scientist” that we have discussed, the
project engineers seemed to brush such views aside and to follow their instincts.
Feeding these instincts were ongoing reports of unidentified objects.

1. On May 5 there were claims of a series of rocket overflights in Turkey,
including a crash at Adapazari with allusions to Soviet experiments in the
Mt. Alagos region.26
2. Fifty or sixty (estimated) high-altitude objects, shining like bright
aluminum, raced across the Memphis, Tennessee, sky on May 7. They
traveled mainly in a straight line, but with some zigzagging.27
3. On May 28 two USAF officers on a transport plane over Monroe,
Michigan, saw disk like objects of silvery-gold or shiny-brass color. The
objects were said to descend through the cloudbank and race away from
the C-47.28

The second of these sightings has some historical importance. There were three
adult civilian witnesses to the multi-object flyover in Memphis and they reported
their sighting to a local newspaper, which carried a small story. Personnel at Ft.
McPherson Georgia heard of the incident and contacted Wright-Patterson, after
their Memphis CIC (counterintelligence) office interviewed the civilians. The
three descriptions were consistent. Lt. Colonel Beam was able to get away
himself and re-interview everyone a week and a half later. The stories still
checked, and the witnesses, trying to find a logical explanation (as do most
witnesses), wondered if they could have seen some unusual meteor shower. Lt.
Colonel Beam stopped at Cincinnati on his way back to Dayton to query Dr.
Paul Herget of the Cincinnati Observatory. Herget seriously doubted that
meteors (or an astronomical observation) could have anything to do with the
case. Beam had already checked and eliminated balloons, and he knew that there
was not an airplane flight explanation. He was running out of options. Herget
then suggested that SIGN consult with meteor authority (and often-used Air
Force consultant) Dr. Lincoln LaPaz of the University of New Mexico, and a
young Ohio State astronomer who had worked in intelligence during the war, J.
Allen Hynek.
Neither man could explain the Memphis occurrence, but this outreach to
Hynek began the most famous UFO project-scientist relationship in history, one
that lasted until the project would finally close in 1969. Something should be
said about the relationship here at its beginning. Hynek was a junior faculty
member and happy with the opportunity to make some extra money from the Air
Force. Consultancies and lucrative projects and facilities were, in those days, a
cottage industry among astronomers. Hynek was also quite out-of-touch as to
what his job was.“ To begin with, he would make occasional trips to Dayton and
be asked about specific cases, a rather simple task. Not being privy to any airy
“politics” involved, he said that he was given the impression that his job was to
explain away all the cases he could, even if he had to stretch the possibilities a
bit. Hynek was not naive in two significant ways, however. He knew that
scientific consultants needed to “please the boss” to keep their jobs, and he knew
that the flying disks were thought to originate from everywhere from Wright-
Patterson itself to outer space. As a thoroughly trained astronomy professional,
he began his work with the a priori assumption that flying disks could not be
extraterrestrial, as no location within our solar system, except Earth, could
sustain advanced life, and everywhere else was so impossibly distant as to be
unreachable.30 Hynek’s very early interactions with SIGN personnel seem to
have been fairly shallow and merely professional. But at the end of the year, he
would become more deeply involved and the biases noted above would play an
ongoing role, one he later grew to regret.
A few other notes are worth consideration before we get to a climactic
event in the month of July.

1. Something that was supposedly Top Secret (the high-altitude Spy-on-
Russia “Mogul” balloon project) was thoroughly leaked to Popular
Science magazine, which published it as the answer to the flying
saucers.31
2. There were rumors that Moscow was interested in the disks.32 Long
after the tensions with the Soviet Union relaxed, we learned that this was
true in some fashion at least (details still not explained) in that Stalin had
asked his rocketry genius, Sergei Korolev, to look into the matter.33
 3. Ghost rockets again? A report from Norway of a sighting in December
finally made it to the Project in July. AMC’s chief of Operations, C.A.
Griffith, wrote to the Norwegian staff not just for this case, but any and all
which came their way. AMC was becoming aware that this phenomenon
was both ongoing and global.34
4. In Hecla, South Dakota, on June 30, a husband and wife saw an odd
object, like a lighted mass, from their automobile. They stopped to look.
Others did, too. After a while, the lighted mass seemed to get larger and
then “throw off’ three Sergei Korolev small pieces. These satellites
assumed a very regular isosceles triangle around the larger mass. All
objects now appeared silvery, like polished aluminum. The central object
then broke apart into an aggregate of many small objects, which seemed to
fade away. The satellite triangle moved away, becoming further separated
and also dimmer as if going to great altitude, always maintaining the
perfect triangle. The project officers who interviewed the witnesses were
impressed with their sincerity and meticulous detail. The husband, who
was a chemical engineer and an amateur astronomer, said “I am familiar
with the new large plastic balloons for weather or cosmic ray observation.
It could not have been one.” This case, a very early example of what looks
to be a geometric display in the sky, proved very difficult to explain. Only
much later did Allen Hynek run roughshod over the witnesses’ testimony
and declare it a cosmic ray balloon, undeterred by either the quality of the
observers or the odd circumstance of a rising perfect triangle of objects.36
This case has been detailed here because it shows that the Project mutated
into a haphazard explanation factory late in 1948 and into the 1949-1951
era. The chemical engineer told the project officers: “My convictions at
this point (in the observation) were that it could not be anything
terrestrial.”

Probably the SIGN group, as it went into July, held this same conclusion, too,
not only of Hecla but several other cases as well. But there was no critical,
compelling piece of evidence. SIGN had given a first interim report in April. If
there were some intention of giving regular, perhaps quarterly reports, then July
would have been a good month for it. But that did not happen in any formal way.
Why? This has to be a deduction, but a guess would be that SIGN personnel felt
that they were on the verge of being forced to say something quite astounding
about the disks, and they were not ready.
More information from additional cases rattled the analysts.
1. On July 7 impeccable witnesses in West Rindge, New Hampshire, noted
curls of smoke rising from a neighbor’s property. Small holes and bums
were found, plus some metallic debris. The debris was sent to MIT for
analysis. Later the FBI got involved. The Project SIGN record card for the
case reads, “Fires were apparently caused by metallic fragments similar to
the lining of V-2 bombs!”37
2. It was the first of July and a Major Hammer of Rapid City, South
Dakota AFB was flying over
'IQ the base when he observed twelve oval-shaped disks.38 He estimated
them as 100 feet in diameter and described them as having a brilliant
yellow-white color. They flew in a tight diamond formation, made a high-
speed dive, leveled and made a perfect formation turn, angled upwards at
30° to 40° and accelerated out of sight. Hammer estimated the cruising
speed at greater than 500 mph. This case may have been viewed as of high
importance. It seems to admit of no commonplace explanation. Analysts in
both the Pentagon and at Wright-Patterson were greatly impressed. Project
SIGN engineers used it to support their (coming) analysis that the disks
were extraterrestrial technology. Even the Pentagon opponents of that
analysis used the case to feature the seriousness of the need to find
answers to the phenomenon. The oddest part of this (to the current
historian) is that the case file has disappeared. And, this file seems to have
disappeared very early in project history, having not been given to Allen
Hynek for his (alleged) comprehensive evaluations of all project cases, nor
a project case number for the microfilm record. Maybe this “loss” is
merely incompetence of some kind, but the case is a poor candidate for
misplacement, given how the intelligence community viewed it.
3. While on the ground on July 9 in Osborn, Ohio (near Wright-Patterson
and Dayton, Ohio), the project officer who flew to investigate the Hecla,
South Dakota case, saw his own UFO. It was a self-luminous yellow-white
object traveling at an estimated 500-600 mph. It seemed to pulse in its
light at about three second intervals as it cruised away.39 It was not as
spectacular as the Rapid City case, but it was observed by one of SIGN’s
own.
 4. On July 17 in San Acacia, New Mexico, near Kirtland AFB, members
of the base and their families witnessed an overflight of seven round
objects with the color of aluminum metal. The flight formation, if it could
be called such, varied from a “J” shape to an “L” to a circle. Flashes of
light occurred as regular pulses. If the officers were correct in their
estimation of altitude (which is practically impossible), then the disks were
traveling at 1500 mph.40
SIGN teetered on the brink of saying that these things had to be extraterrestrial.
During these early days in July, through the Air Force’s Research and
Development division, discussion about the possibility that the UFOs might be
human-built spaceships resulted in an Air Force formal letter (July 21)
authorizing the RAND organization to engage scientists to evaluate the idea.41
We do not know what RAND did at that time. The action shows, however, that
the UFOs were appearing to be very real and of very high performance to the
loftiest elements concerned with Air Force technology. Project SIGN made a
similar, if not identical, request to RAND in October of that year. Because the
thinking must have been roundly discussed within the Air Force community, it
would not be at all surprising if the details of this October request, reproduced
on the next page and an original copy in the appendix, mimicked the July
concept.42 Given what we know about SIGN’s view of the UFO problem, this
request had an overt and a covert side. While the Air Force was asking RAND if
we humans could create aerial technology to explain some of the most difficult
sightings (and SIGN wanted this answer, too), SIGN could view a “no” as
ammunition for the conclusion they were moving towards. We can assume from
all of this that intelligence and technology elements throughout the Air Force
were excited if not alarmed by the unsolved disks.
And then came July 24. Eastern Airlines flight 576 out of Houston was over
Montgomery, Alabama at 2:45 in the morning. Most of the passengers were
asleep or dozing. At the controls, two of Eastern’s best: Captains C. S. Chiles
and John B. Whitted.43 Ahead, and slightly above, they spotted an incoming
object. “One of those new jet jobs,” they thought. As it came on, it resolved
itself into a rocket-shaped thing, sort of like a plane’s fuselage with no wings or
tail protuberances. It seemed 100 feet long and with a barrel diameter three times
that of a B-29. (Chiles was described in the Air Force report as as “a Lt. Colonel
pilot, USAF, in a command capacity [during the war], with vast experience in
judging and identifying aircraft.”) The object passed near their plane to the right
and slightly above. Once past, the pilots felt that the flying fuselage gently
angled upwards and away. Chiles later said to news reporters:

EXHIBIT “A”

Project Sign Study Requirements

The possibility that some of the unidentified aerial objects that have
been reported both in the United States and in foreign lands may have been
experimental spaceships, or test vehicles for the purpose of assisting in the
development of spaceships, has been given consideration by this
Command.
If such craft actually have been sighted, it is believed more likely that
they represent the effort of a foreign nation, rather than a product from
beyond the Earth.
Present world knowledge, techniques and resources are probably
adequate to meet the requirements for spaceship construction, or at least to
establish the preliminary experimental foundation for such an
accomplishment in the near future.
In any case, the design and performance parameters of the craft
would necessarily be in conformance and consistent with the established
principles of our sciences.
To assist in the collection of information, relating to unidentified
aerial objects that may possibly represent spaceships or spaceship test
vehicles, and to assist in the analysis and evaluation of such reported craft,
technical information that includes the distinguishing design and
performance parameters for spaceships is considered necessary.
While such information is contained outright, or implicitly, in the
series of RAND Project reports, it would be of much value to this
Command to have a list of the special design and performance
characteristics that are believed to distinguish spaceships, together with
any further scientific clues that might assist in their detection and
identification, prepared by RAND scientific personnel.

“After it passed we must have sat there for five minutes without saying a
word.”44 They landed and reported the event to their administrators at Atlanta.
Those persons released the report to the press.
The news spread like wildfire. Everyone wanted to interview the pilots. Chiles
later said that he got a phone call from the Pentagon telling him that if he said
one more word on this in public that he would be called back to active duty.45 In
California, the chief of the Strategic Air Command was cornered by reporters.
“No,” he said. “We don’t have one of those things. I wish we did. I sure would
have liked to see that thing.”46 Somewhat more seriously, Director of
Intelligence Charles Cabell phoned Howard McCoy at Wright-Patterson. The
message: get your agents down to Atlanta immediately!47
By that afternoon, Loedding, Deyarmond, and their boss, Raymond
Llewellyn, were on their way to Atlanta. They met Chiles and Whitted at the
Henry Grady hotel, split them up, and interviewed them separately. Many details
emerged. Both pilots remembered the same shape and dimensions. Both
remembered a double row of windows along the side—but their drawings of this
are quite different. Both remembered an exhaust out the back but quite a
different Top: Chiles' drawing array of “structure” (Chiles’ drawing having much
more Bottom: Whitted’s drawing detail than Whitted’s). At this point, one’s
mind decides to become a “lumper” (look how alike they are!) or a “splitter”
(look how different!). Loedding and Deyarmond, who conducted the interviews,
were lumpers. To say they were impressed would put it mildly. They went back
to Dayton convinced that Chiles and Whitted had seen a very advanced,
wingless machine, doubtless meant to carry personnel (thus, the windows).
Explainers have tried to write this case off as a very unusual near miss with an
Earth grazing bolide/fireball. Maybe it was;
Chiles and Whitted did not think so and neither did SIGN.
When Loedding and Deyarmond got back to the Project, all the central figures
there thought that they had finally received the critical case. This was a wingless,
maneuverable, flying machine shaped like a stumpy projectile. They knew that
such a thing was extremely difficult to fly, but not impossible. An esoteric
principle, called the Prandtl Theory of Lift and considered foundational in
aerodynamic science, indicated that this device could be made.48 But the
problem was power—the power plant must be exceptional. Unfortunately,
nothing we had, and nothing that the Soviets could conceivably have had, could
power this craft.
And yet it flew. The conclusion that their work had been priming them for had
now crystallized in their minds. These things are extraterrestrial.
Alfred Loedding probably greeted this climax with glee, being as he was, a bit
of a romantic thinker. Who knows what the others felt. But all the other main
players had to have bought into it to proceed with such a risky assessment. Now
they had to make a case: an “Estimate.”
There has been a long-standing debate among UFO historians as to when this
Estimate was written and sent to the Pentagon. It does not matter. Some thought
it happened quickly (in August), some more measurably (September, October, or
even November). Probably in some senses, everybody is correct. Nobody with
any sense in the military is going to drop formally written-up “bombs” on
members of the higher chain-of-command. What SIGN was thinking had to be
broached to the Pentagon many times before the extraterrestrial bomb formally
arrived. What we can say with assurance is that Project personnel began putting
together their argument for an extraterrestrial estimate after their assessment of
the Chiles-Whitted encounter and before a face-off with their opponents in
November.
The Chiles-Whitted sighting seemed to encourage people to report their
sightings as well as others to comment. Disks were observed in Washington
State, police and airport administrator phone lines were jammed, and planes
were sent up to attempt interception.49 An Oregon astronomer quickly assured
everyone that these things were just the planet Venus. Another man was not so
sure.

These aerial objects could be the first reconnaissance flights from another
planet. Why not? We know how to build such an escape missile—one that
could escape the bounds of gravity and soar off into free space among the
planets... If we can build such craft, what is to prevent others from doing
so, assuming that a similar order of intelligence exists on other planets?
You and I may see the day when we will be united with Russia defending
this planet against attack from space.50

The Air Force wished people would not make statements like this, especially if
that person was Moulton B. Taylor, former Navy commander and chief engineer
in charge of guided missile development during the war. Taylor may have been
making honest and frank comments, but overly exciting the public was not what
the intelligence community saw as wise.
Meanwhile, SIGN engineers were hearing of possible ground witness
corroboration for the Chiles- Whitted fuselage, and of an identical object over
Arnheim, Netherlands on July 20.51 At the end of the month, a husband and
wife observed a “classic saucer” shaped object from their home. This case is
carried as an “unidentified” to this day. Sightings were so numerous around
government installations in New Mexico that some of the scientists began to
organize their own observing groups.52 On September 23, personnel at Los
Alamos Laboratory saw a disk-like object from the lab’s airstrip.53 This is
significant as the latest dated case, as stated by former UFO project chief
Captain Edward Ruppelt (1951-53 era), to have been included in SIGN’s
extraterrestrial estimate.54
A reasonable hypothesis of what was going on between SIGN and the
Pentagon during the months of August and September was that Colonel McCoy
was breaking the news about where SIGN was headed to Lt. Colonel Garrett,
Director Charles Cabell, et al. and getting resistant, if not shocked, feedback. If
we had the complete documents from the Air Force records, we would not have
to guess.
What fragments we do have indicate that in this timeframe offices in the
Pentagon, involving at least Major Jere Boggs and the Office of Naval
Intelligence, were asked to prepare their own counter estimate.55 There was
going to be a fight over this.
Early in October a National Guard pilot in Fargo, North Dakota, reported what
appeared to multiple observers to be a dogfight-like air dance with a white
sphere. SIGN was energized and ordered that the plane be tested for remnant
radioactivity.56 Why? They had decided that the likely power plant needed to fly
things like the Chiles-Whitted fuselage was nuclear.
It is almost a certainty that communication between the two Air Force
Intelligence Centers over their “difference of opinion” was intense and that
Colonel Howard McCoy was caught in the middle. His office once again asked
the Navy, the Army, and the CIA whether they were aware of any developments
that could explain these things.57 McCoy’s assistant director, Colonel
Clingerman, then co sent the request for analysis on Earth-created spaceships to
RAND, which we have mentioned earlier. None of these answers helped the
situation. All these organizations were forced to say either “no known
technology,” or “technology is possible but not available.” These assessments
could have done nothing but strengthen SIGN’s confidence that they were on
track.
To ensure that things were as complicated and pressure-filled as possible, an
interview with Brigadier General Erik H. Nelson (at the time a technical advisor
for Scandinavian Air Lines) indicated that Sweden was having overflights by
unknown craft again, and that this time they were not just “rockets,” but saucer-
like disks and round spheres (a la the Fargo case) as well.59 Jan Aldrich, UFO
historian and expert FOIA researcher, was recently allowed to review a formerly
Top Secret document which discussed thinking in Sweden at this time.60 (It is
printed on the following page.) Surely opinion about the phenomenon was as
split in Sweden as it was in the United States.
Sometime during October SIGN must have been emphatically told that the
direction of their thinking was not going to be approved on high. The typical
way that this is talked about by historians is that SIGN finally sent a formally
written Estimate to Director of Intelligence Cabell.61 He, for some reason, did
not rule on it but passed it up to the chief of staff, Hoyt Vandenberg.
Vandenberg, it is said, “batted it back down,” with the implication of an
aggressive displeasure, almost a “spanking” for SIGN. Perhaps this happened in
October, but there is another scenario that provides us at least a bit of
documentation for a date.
In the Pentagon the Air Force Intelligence “Office of Defensive Air” was
working with the Office of Naval Intelligence to produce a document, which
later was formally numbered AIR 100-203-79, and which argued for very
different conclusions.62 On November 3, Director of Intelligence Cabell sent a
rather icy letter (in that it went directly to the Commanding General at AMC
without the usual “attention” notice to Colonel McCoy or SIGN) which agreed
that “the conclusion appears inescapable that some type of flying object has been
observed,” but that (to paraphrase) as far as the Pentagon is concerned these
things have not been identified (read: don’t tell us they’re extraterrestrial
spacecraft).63 Therefore, increase the efforts to tell us whether these things are
domestic or foreign (read: don’t tell us that they’re extraterrestrial!). This is
urgent. And, by the way, we need to decide what we’re going to say to the public
about this. (The actual letter is displayed on page 64.) SIGN’s Albert
Deyarmond, Colonel McCoy’s friend over all these years, wrote the reply for
McCoy’s signature five days later.64 It was basically a defense of SIGN’s work
to date with a few new projects thrown in to indicate that they were on the ball.
The reply repeats the now common estimates of the types of devices SIGN was
dealing with (disks, fuselages, spheres, and balls of light). Deyarmond flatly
states that there are cases “for which no reasonable everyday explanation is
available.” He also maintains that all the information

USAFE 14 TT 1524 TOP SECRET 4 Nov 1948

From 0I OB
For some time we have been concerned by [the recurring reports on
flying saucers. They periodically continue to cop upj during the last weak,
one was observed hovering over Neubiberg Air [Link] for about, thirty
minutes. They have been reported by so many sources and fro'ia sucn a
variety of places that , we are convinced that they cannot be disregarded
and must be explained on some basis which is perhaps slightly beyond the
scope of our present intelligence thinking.
When officers of this This Directorate recently visited the Swedish
Air Intelligence Service. This question was put to the Swedes. Their
answer was that some reliable and fully technically qualified people have
reached the conclusion that “these phenomena are obviously the result of a
high technical skill which cannot be credited to any presently known
culture or earth." They :are therefore assuming that these objects originate
from some previously unknown or unidentified technology, possibly
outside the earth.
One of these objects was observed by a Swedish . technical expert ,
near his home on the edge of a lake. The object crashed or landed in the
 lake and he carefully noted its azimuth from his point of observation.
Swedish intelligence was sufficiently confident in his observation that a
naval salvage team was sent to the Lake. Operations were underway
during the visit of USAFE officers. Divers had discovered a previously
uncharted crater on the floor of the lake. No further information is
available, but we have been promised Knowledge of the results. In their
opinion; th€ observation was reliable, and they believe that the qepressior:
on the floor , of the lake, which did not appear on current hydrographic
charts, was in fact caused by a flying saucer.
Although accepting this theory of the origin of these objects poses a
whole new group of questions and puts much of our thinking in a changed
ii light, we are inclined not to discredit entirely this somewhat spectacular
theory, meantime keeping an open mind on the subject. What are your
reactions?

TOP SECRET
(END OF USAFE ITEM 14)

SUBJECT: Flying Object Incidents in the United States

TO: Commanding General, Air Materiel Command
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Dayton, Ohio

1. By letter dated 30 December 1947 from the Director of Research and
Development, Headquarters USAF, your Headquarters was required
to establish project “SIGN”.
2. The conclusion appears inescapable that some type of flying object has
 been observed. Identification and the origin of these objects is not
discernible to this Headquarters. It is imperative, therefore, that
efforts to determine whether these objects are of domestic or foreign
origin must be increased until conclusive evidence is obtained. The
needs of national defense require such evidence in order that
appropriate countermeasures may be taken.
3. In addition to the imperative need for evidence to permit
countermeasures, is the necessity of informing the public as to the
status of the problem. To date there has been too little data to present
to the public. The press, however, is about to take it in its own hands
and demand to be told what we do or do not know about the situation.
Silence on our part will not long be acceptable.
4. Request immediate information as to your conclusion to data and your
recommendation as to the information to be given to the press. Your
recommendation is requested also as to whether that information
should be offered to the press or with-held until it is actively sought
by the press.

1st (?) COMMAND OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF
C.P. CABELL
Major General, USAF
Director of Intelligence, Office of Deputy Chief of Staff, Operation

available to SIGN indicates that the objects are not of domestic origin. Once
again SIGN says: such things could be made to fly, but not with currently
available power plants. Deyarmond says nothing about origins from foreign
countries, but that mere omission indicates that no one at SIGN believed that
feasible. The memo (included in the appendix of this book) then addresses the
extraterrestrial possibility and admits that there is no tangible evidence (meaning
pieces of a craft). But, stubbornly, SIGN goes on to say that there is some level
of correlation of waves of sightings with approaches of the nearer planets. The
Pentagon may have been ordering them to drop the extraterrestrial hypothesis,
but Deyarmond and SIGN were not ready to do so without a full-fledged fight.
That fight occurred on November 12, 1948. SIGN was ordered to appear in
Washington for a meeting with the relevant intelligence community at a location
in the National Bureau of Standards.65 We do not know all that attended. SIGN
sent a “contingent,” headed by project officer Captain Robert Sneider, who it is
said presented the SIGN position (surely the formally written and fully
documented Estimate). The opposition was led by Major Jere Boggs of the
Office of Defensive Air and the primary author of the opposing Estimate (AIR-
100-203-79). No other name is known with certainty, but the logical candidates
from AMC are, of course, Loedding, Deyarmond, Lawrence Truettner, and
Colonel McCoy. On the Washington side, representatives from ONI as well as
General Cabell and his main advisors almost surely had to be there. Who else?
The CIA? Yandenberg himself? The documents and notes of this meeting have
never been released.
All we know is that SIGN lost the war. Their humiliation was emphasized by
orders that they were in the future required to send copies of all their cases and
analyses to Boggs, the ONI, and the Air Force’s Scientific Advisory Board.66
That message was as clear as a woodshed whipping: you are not trusted to do
this work without adult supervision. Through all of these stormy affairs difficult
cases continued to flow in and to resist explanation.
SIGN was finished. Loedding said that his stock at the Pentagon had never
been lower.67 Deyarmond and Truettner went back to AMC to write up the final
SIGN report, notably not including the extraterrestrial hypothesis. SIGN’s name
was changed to “Grudge” on December 16, 1948, with a bit of malice.68 AIR-
100-203-79 was formally published on December 10, as the best intelligence
statement on flying disks. SIGN’s Estimate was ordered destroyed (although this
seems to be somewhat of a euphemism as such documents appear to be kept in
reference files, regardless).69 Within a month or two, all of the main
contributors to the SIGN project were reassigned to other duties, leaving only
the two lowest ranks (a Lieutenant Smith and a civilian, Towles) to maintain a
case filing activity under the term Grudge.
Although much, much more could be said (especially concerning cases) about
this critical year, we will finish 1948 with just two final points. One is the AIR-
100 document. What did it have to say?
 In the middle 1980s, due to the work of FOIA expert Robert Todd, the
government declassified and released this Top Secret document, and we can read
it for ourselves. “A.I.R.” means Air Intelligence Report, and the rest is just an
access number for identification. The title of the report is familiar: “Analysis of
Flying Object Incidents in the U.S.” The report contained 26 pages plus an
index. (This was roughly the size of the rival Estimate as reported by the three
persons who we know read that document in the 1952 era.)70 Both the Air Force
and the Navy’s intelligence organizations were listed as the preparers. As usual
with these things, the report begins with a Summary and Conclusions, and
follows with several appendices. The main conclusion is that “some type of
flying object has been observed.” The idea that U.S. sightings are general
hysteria, induced by hearing about Scandinavian ghost rockets is addressed and
dismissed. The document properly suggests that not all reports are likely to be of
the same sort of thing, and that some cases may be advanced technology of U.S.
origin, for instance. Therefore one must do a better job assessing the presence of
U.S. technology. But the possibility of foreign technology is the real concern.
The report maintains that the disks appear in a geographically over-weighted
pattern, which features the coasts and the Ohio-Kentucky area. The report says
that there are only two “reasonable” hypotheses: domestic origin, or foreign
(Soviet). Then much is presented to make the Soviet case. In the listing of
critical cases appear many of the ones we have already discussed (which were
deliberately chosen to give the reader a feeling for the kinds of things which
were sticking with the military analysts). The report ends with a discussion of
known flying wing research.
The final item that is too important to ignore in this saga seems relatively
trivial at first glance. Some magazine writer wanted to write an article about
flying saucers. Remember that on November 3, Director of Intelligence Cabell
wanted to know what SIGN felt about releasing facts and commentary to the
American public.71 He said that the press was about to take matters into its own
hands. In October, SIGN had blasted the commanding officer of the North
Dakota National Guard for talking to the press about the Fargo incident. This
officer, Major D.C. Jones, wrote SIGN in consternation: What was he supposed
to do? Civilians who observed the “dogfight” already knew:

It was necessary that a press conference be made in order to avoid an
 exaggerated account being printed and a consequent wild hysteria.72

SIGN had handled the press differently when pushed back in Ohio. We’re
investigating everything, they said:

The public can be assured there's nothing going on we don't know about...
Military Intelligence is charged with investigating any reports regarding
such as 'flying disks' and the matter is purely routine in nature. If one of
these things turned out to be something strange and new, the public will be
informed.73

The presentation speaks volumes. Within the project, the SIGN engineers were
scrambling to test the plane from the Fargo incident for nuclear contamination in
pursuit of data for their extraterrestrial theory. Outside, to the public, it was “Ho
hum. Nothing, folks, nothing at all.” Meanwhile the Pentagon was thinking
Soviet. It is well past time that everyone drops the naive belief that press releases
on this topic have been constructed with truth and frankness as their primary
qualities. They have not. They have been constructed rather with priority for the
security of the public and the nation as the driving goal. One might disagree with
the reasoning process which led the intelligence community to do what they
thought was best in this regard, but not with their ultimate intention. To achieve
that intention, information was not only being withheld, but also occasionally
manipulated in some fashion.
So what did SIGN recommend back to Cabell about this general information
management problem?

It is not considered advisable to present to the press information on those
objects which we cannot identify or about which we cannot present any
reasonable conclusions. In the event that they insist on some kind of
statement, it is suggested that they be informed that many of the objects
sighted have been identified as weather balloons or astral bodies, and that
investigation is being pursued to determine reasonable explanations for
the others.74

It’s as in the popular movie line. The curious public says: I want the Truth
(whether it be Soviet, extraterrestrial, or just an “Unknown” hanging over our
heads)! And the answer is “You can’t handle the truth!”
And along came a rather insistent news writer. Sidney Shallet was a
contributor to the Saturday Evening Post, a major national magazine. Somehow
Shallet got the ear and the approval of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal to
enlist the help of the Air Force’s UFO project to gather information for a splashy
to article.75 This information management problem was about the last thing
Cabell and the Pentagon wanted. They would never have agreed to this, and they
stewed over it in the documents that have been released.76 But Forrestal was
everybody’s boss. There was no place to hide.
Now it was a matter of damage control. In the convoluted business of military
intelligence matters, the Pentagon found itself writing a letter to Secretary
Forrestal requesting his approval to “assist” such writers as Shallet in these cases
where they insist on writing about UFOs. Cabell’s chief of Air Intelligence,
Brigadier General Ernest Moore, wrote the letter and Attachéd memorandum to
Forrestal.77 What Moore and Cabell were saying was: look, Mr. Secretary,
we’ve got a problem here. We’re investigating every case we can get our hands
on, we know that the objects are real, but that’s all. We cannot make a reasonable
identification. All we can do is keep at it. But the press is after us. Since we
cannot avoid that, despite us trying to discourage them from publishing such
articles, we would like to assist such writers when we have to. (There is no
doubt, by the way, that “assist” was a euphemism for “subtly control.”) The
letter ends: “It is believed that an article of this nature would be less harmful to
the national interest if the Directorate of Intelligence assists in its
preparation.”78
Thus, in late January or early February of 1949, Shallet was taken on a guided
tour of the project at AMC and given filtered (unclassified) case information and
opinions. More about this later. 1948 ended in continued Air Force confusion.
No one knew what they were dealing with, yet they were convinced that it was a
real mystery of a technological sort. Project SIGN and its personnel had been
crushed, and “Project Grudge” went on with no incentive except
housekeeping.79 And the problem of how to handle the public seemed
unsolvable.

Notes
1 FOIA (USAF). The Pentagon’s USAF Directorate of Intelligence structure
(particularly the officers occupying each post) has been reconstructed from
reading the mass of FOIA documents. 2 Edward Ruppelt File R022, and FOIA
(USAF).
3 Blue Book microfilm. Similarly the organizational chart of Wright-Patterson’s
Intelligence division (that went by more than one name across this period; for
example, the division is referred to as “T-2,” “ATIC,” and sometimes simply
“AMC”) has been deduced from the Blue Book microfilms. There are some
charts available from the base, which give snapshots of the community, against
which we can check whether we’re on the right track for a specific year.
4 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
5 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2 (Mantell file: “Statement of T. Sgt. Quinton A.
Blackwell,” 9 January 1948).
6 O.C. Winzen to James McDonald, 22 October 1968 (James McDonald
Archives, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, Box 8). Also, former Blue Book
chief Edward Ruppelt told UFO investigator Ted Bloecher in 1955 that he had
“indications” that there was a skyhook balloon in the area but “I could never find
a record of this skyhook flight” in 1952.
7 See, for example, “Spyglasses Search Through the Southwest Sky But Great
What-was-it Keeps Out of Sight” in Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal, 9 January
1948, for immediate “Venus” explanation; and see A.B. Deyarmond, note,
subject: “Godman Field Air Force Base Sightings,” 8 November 1948, wherein
Deyarmond states that Venus cannot be the explanation for Mantell’s case (Blue
Book microfilm Roll 2).
8 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2; and McCoy to Chief of Staff, 23 January 1948,
and Eiseman to CG, AMC, 2 February 1948 in Ghost Rockets chapter, both
FOIA (USAF).
9 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2, and FOIA (USAF), as in endnote 8.
10 Quoted in “Flying Discs Book Declared Closed,” dateline Washington, DC,
31 January 1948 in Pendleton (OR) East Oregonian (from Gross, 1948,
supplement).
11 H. M. McCoy to Lt. Col. George Garrett, memorandum, subject: “Flying
Discs,” 16 January 1948, FOIA (USAF).
12 Amazing Stories (ed. Raymond Palmer), Vol. 22(4): April 1948.
13 Fate (ed. “Robert N. Webster”), Vol. 1(1): Spring 1948.
14 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
15 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
16 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1; esp. Lewis C. Gust, memorandum, subject:
“Identification of Subject Matter,” 19 February 1948.
17 S. E. Anderson to Director of Intelligence, memorandum, subject: “Flying
Discs,” 3 March 1948, FOIA (USAF).
18 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
19 H. M. McCoy (J. C. Beam) to Chief of Staff, USAF, memorandum, subject:
“Project ‘SIGN’,” 23 April 1948, FOIA (USAF).
20 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
21 Blue Book microfilm Roll 1, Rhodes file.
22 H. M. McCoy to Chief of Staff, subject: “Project ‘SIGN’,” 23 April 1948,
FOIA (USAF).
23 Irving Langmuir, “Pathological Science,” Technical Information Series #G8-
C-035, General Electric Research and Development Center, Schenectady, NY,
April 1968; and Alfred Loedding, quoted in “Princeton Engineer Believes Flying
Saucers Real Thing,” Trenton (NJ) Sunday Times-Advertiser, 10 October 1954.
24 Langmuir, “Pathological Science.”
25 Theodore von Karman (with Lee Edson), The Wind and Beyond, 1967.
26 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
27 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
28 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
29 J. Allen Hynek, The Hynek UFO Report, 1997; originally 1977.
30 Hynek, Hynek UFO Report; plus Hynek, Grudge.
31 Devon Francis, “New Balloons Explore Roof of the Airways,” Popular
Science, May 1948: 98-104.
32 “The Friend,” Moscow, USSR, Note (Serial 38-S-48), 10 June 1948, from
USAF files as cited in Gross (1948).
33 Vadim Orlov, interview with Professor Valery Burdakov (associate of
Korolev), in AURA-Z, No. 1, March 1993: 11.
34 C. A. Griffith, Chief Operations Section, Air Technical Intelligence Center,
Wright-Patterson AFB, note: “Luminous Object,” (MA R-365-47-NAD No.
12199), 29 June 1948 from Blue Book files as cited in Gross (1948).
35 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
36 Hynek, Grudge.
37 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
38 Edward Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, uncorrected
draft, Ruppelt files (held for the UFO Research Coalition by Michael Swords,
Kalamazoo, MI); and Directorate of Intelligence USAF and Office of Naval
Intelligence USN, Analysis of Flying Object Incidents in the U.S., Air
Intelligence Report No. 100-203-79, 10 December 1948 (hereafter cited as AIR-
100).
39 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
40 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
41 W. R. Clingerman (AMC/ATIC) to Chief of Staff, USAF, Washington, DC,
memorandum, subject: “Request for Study by Rand Project,” 22 October 1948
(referencing July memo), FOIA (USAF).
42 W. R. Clingerman to Chief of Staff , memorandum, “Request for Study by
Rand Project,” attachment, FOIA (USAF).
43 Blue Book microfilm Rolls 2 and 3.
44 Albert Riley, “Atlanta Pilots Report Wingless Sky Monster,” Atlanta (GA)
Constitution, 25 July 1948.
45 Clarence Chiles interview by James McDonald, McDonald files, University
of Arizona archives.
46 William Key, “Sky Devil-ship Scares Pilots,” Atlanta (GA) Journal, 25 July
1948.
47 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
48 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2. The Prandtl Theory of Lift is mentioned in a
few documents, all concerning this case directly or indirectly. One such
document is contained in a fragmentary form in the microfilm above, numbered
“102-122 79,” and is considered by some as a preliminary piece to the formal
extraterrestrial estimate of SIGN to come.
49 “New Aerial Mystery,” Associated Press Story, dateline: Yakima,
Washington, 25 July 1948; cited in Gross (1948, supplement).
50 “Men of Mars May Replace Flying Saucers,” Associated Press Story,
dateline: Portland, Oregon, 26 July 1948; cited in Gross (1948, supplement).
51 Blue Book microfilm Roll 2.
52 J. F. Kalbach to James McDonald, 1 January 1970, McDonald files,
University of Arizona archives.
53 Kalbach to McDonald.
54 Edward Ruppelt (draft).
55 Colonel Brooke Allen to Chief, Air Intelligence Division, memorandum, 11
October 1948 (referenced therein), FOIA (USAF).
56 Blue Book microfilm Roll 3.
57 H. M. McCoy to Central Intelligence Agency, subject: “Project ‘SIGN’,” 7
October 1948, FOIA (USAF).
58 W. R. Clingerman to Chief of Staff, memorandum, “Request for Study by
Rand Project,” 22 October 1948, FOIA (USAF).
59 H. M. McCoy to Chief of Staff, USAF, memorandum, subject: “Interview of
Brig Gen Erik N. Nelson,” date of memo not readable, FOIA (USAF).
60 USAFE document: USAFE 14, IT 1524, Top Secret, 4 November 1948.
61 Edward Ruppelt, Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, draft.
62 AIR-100.
63 C. P. Cabell to Commanding General AMC, memorandum, subject: “Flying
Objects Incidents in the United States,” 3 November 1948, FOIA (USAF).
64 H. M. McCoy to Chief of Staff, USAF, memorandum, subject: [basic letter
response to above] “Flying Object Incidents in the United States,” 8 November
1948, FOIA (USAF).
65 Edward Ruppelt, draft, and H. M. McCoy to Chief of Staff, USAF,
memorandum, subject: “Transmittal of Project ‘SIGN’ Incident Summaries,” 6
December 1948, FOIA (USAF).
66 H. M. McCoy, memorandum, subject: “Transmittal of Project ‘SIGN’
Incident Summaries,” 6 December 1948.
67 L.H. Truettner and A.B. Deyarmond, Unidentified Aerial Objects: Project
“SIGN, ” Technical Intelligence Division, Air Materiel Command, Technical
Report No. F-TR-2274-IA, February 1949.
68 Ruppelt, draft.
69 Blue Book microfilm Rolls 3 and 4, passim.
70 AIR-100. Re: Estimate, see Ruppelt, draft; and Major Dewey Fournet to
Major Donald Keyhoe, 4 May 1958.
71 C. P. Cabell to AMC, November 3, “Flying Objects Incidents,” 1948, FOIA
(USAF).
72 Gross (1948), citing Blue Book microfilms, file #172.
73 Gross (1948), citing Associated Press News Story, dateline: Dayton, Ohio, 5
October 1948. 74 H. M. McCoy to Chief of Staff, “Flying Object Incidents,” 8
November 1948, FOIA (USAF) 75 Edward Ruppelt, draft, and C. P. Cabell to
AFOAI, draft of letter and notes, 28 November 1948, and 30 November 1948,
FOIA (USAF).
76 (Authorship “AFOAI,” coordinated by General E. Moore), memorandum for
record, 24 November 1948, FOIA (USAF).
77 C. P. Cabell to AFOAI, draft of letter and notes, 28 November 1948 and 30
November, 1948, FOIA (USAF).
78 H. M. McCoy to Chief of Staff, USAF, memorandum, subject: “Project Status
Report on Project ‘SIGN’,” 9 February 1949, FOIA (USAF).
79 Edward Ruppelt, draft.

 Chapter 5: Grudge
As the problem of the flying disks passed into 1949, the Air Force’s ability to
handle the issue had actually worsened. The dedicated team at Air Materiel
Command had become dispirited and had been dispersed, with analysts Albert
Deyarmond and Lawrence Truettner just clearing up the debris and writing the
final SIGN report. At the Pentagon, there was no clarity of vision as to what the
disks were, nor, therefore, how appropriately to organize an investigation.
Probably because of leaks, members of the press and public were beginning to
hear that the Soviets were the cause of this phenomenon: something not viewed
as at all desirable as a public message. Within the military, officers were puzzled
as to what the policy towards these objects really was. Do we take them
seriously? Do we investigate? Report? To whom? Anyone hearing rumors of the
shootout at the National Bureau of Standards and the embarrassment of the
AMC Intelligence community probably thought that saying anything at all about
flying disks was a career mistake. The Directorate of Intelligence was slow to
realize that it had botched the situation, and, in the following year, things would
get worse, not better. Things would have gotten better, of course, if the
phenomenon would just stop. Then everyone could let these events fade with
memory, and ultimately relax in the conviction that they had never happened.
But, of course, the phenomenon was very far from stopping. Sightings by
some of the nation’s leading technology and science experts would occur during
this year. We will get to them in their place, later in this chapter. However, to
whet the appetite, and to demonstrate a point, there are two interesting incidents
that occurred early in 1949.
In the early afternoon of January 4 at Hickam Field, Hawaii,1 an Air Force
pilot and a base communications officer saw an unusual object, apparently
several miles off the base and slowly circling. It was a disk, bright white on the
underside and darker on top. The object possessed no other structures. It
proceeded for fifteen minutes to make “rhythmical undulation” maneuvers in a
cyclical manner. The “object seemed to maneuver under control at all times—
completing 360° turns and 90° turns.” The object then “departed climbing at
accelerated speed out of sight.” The observer received rave compliments for his
level-headedness and integrity from the base’s investigating officer. Project
Grudge asked that the captain fill out a form, asked no more questions, and filed
it. Even Allen Hynek, in the thick of his orientation towards trying to debunk
every sighting possible, felt that this was a rare case wherein the witness had
really seen a flying disk.2 Trying to find something negative to say about this,
months later in the Grudge report, the Grudge analyst at that time groused that
the witness should have observed “a greater amount of detail.”
On January 27 near Eglin AFB, Florida,3 an Air Force officer and his wife
were the witnesses. He was an engineer and chief of the aircraft branch at the
base. He had also recently been part of the intelligence group at AMC, having
transferred to Eglin in the fall of 1948. This was a nocturnal sighting, occurring
around midnight, and lasting about 25 minutes. The object was similar to that
seen in 1947 by Chiles and Whitted: an elongated fat cigar or cucumber-shaped
structure with what the observers felt were one or two rows of windows along its
length. It seemed to pulse its light, and made many maneuvers before
disappearing. The witnesses thought, because of the pulses accompanied by
“sparks,” that the object was rocket-propelled. The sudden “right-angle” changes
of direction were an early case of a class of sightings that involved “impossible”
non-inertial motions. One can imagine what excitement this would have caused
6 months earlier during the Chiles-Whitted affair. As it was, no one now was
interested. The case received a minimal filing.
As the phenomenon continued doing whatever it was that it was doing, Albert
Deyarmond and Lawrence Truettner soldiered onward with the last assignment
for Project SIGN: the final report. It was completed in February: “Unidentified
Aerial Objects, Project ‘SIGN’.”4 The report is marked “Secret” and is 35 pages
long (about the same as the fabled “Estimate”). The big wheels of AMC
(Clingerman signing for McCoy, and Miles Goll signing for Clingerman)
approved it for transmission to the Pentagon. To the UFO historian, the whole
document is interesting. But, for our purposes, a summary and a few remarks
will suffice.
Deyarmond and Truettner had a problem. They had to compose the report but
without the conclusion that they believed everything pointed towards. It was
difficult to do that and make the report read as if it made sense. Deyarmond and
Truettner accomplished this, as best they could, by adopting the view that it was
just possible that all the incidents for which no “reasonable” solution was
available were caused by inadequacies in human beings’ abilities to perceive
details accurately. Thereby they could continue to describe the cases as honestly
as possible, and dismiss certain theories as unlikely or not fitting the cases, but
fall back in the end on the escape hatch that the observations were poor. This
also allowed the AMC analysts to obey “to the letter” General Cabell’s flat order
that any SIGN report would not say that we have identified these mysterious
incidents. This then also brought them into line, because they could go right with
Cabell’s “opinion” that we must maintain serious study of these unknown
objects till we get the explanation. We know that Deyarmond and Truettner did
not believe that all the observations of unidentified objects were poor (they
believed them sufficient to eliminate all mundane explanations, as we have
seen), but they were forced to rest their assessment upon this fiction. To reiterate,
the Pentagon tells the analysts that these objects are to be considered
unidentified. By definition, that means the information and the observations are
not to be considered sufficient.
The writers’ language throughout the text is extremely mild and tentative. It’s
obvious that everyone has gotten the message. Still, the phenomenon is stated as
real, and in the “traditional” forms of expression (disks, fuselages, spheres, and
balls of light) that we have seen in the previous estimates. The Soviet threat is
mentioned; so, even, is the extraterrestrial hypothesis, though not supportively.
Two appendices are intriguing: a thoughtful essay by MIT physicist Dr. George
Valley, on the physical and astronomical considerations which might be involved
in evaluations of the cases, plus suggestions on better investigation and
analyses;5 and a RAND report by Dr. James Lipp, entirely on the consideration
of extraterrestrial civilizations and space travel.6 Though neither Valley nor Lipp
were about to make statements in support of the SIGN/Chiles-Whitted
hypothesis for the flying disks, their objective, well-reasoned essays gave the
report a strong extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) afterglow. We are not saying
that Valley or Lipp bought into the ETH -Lipp is definitely known not to have 7-
but their essays have the open-minded flavor that would give the reader pause.
Deyarmond and Truettner, taking no encouragement from any of that, ended by
recommending that the project should be continued, but at only a minimal level.
Their rationale was that once enough cases, examined over a reasonable period
of time, indicated no national security issues, then the project should be
terminated. It is almost their final defiance: since you (the Pentagon) don’t trust
us to do this work, just close the project.
Problems continued at the Pentagon. Commands were confused by an equally
confused policy and leadership. Cabell’s brief remarks in his that he was always
encouraging his operatives autobiography to aim attempted at proving that to the
rewrite disks this were history real. o
by That claiming might have been true in 1951, but the documents of 1949 show
no evidence of Cabell allowing SIGN the freedom to interpret the UFO
phenomenon as it saw fit. In fact, it could be said that the Air Force’s behavior
towards the phenomenon was completely reactionary and disorganized.
A very important example of this is the way the Saturday Evening Post writer,
Sidney Shalett, was handled. As we have seen, Cabell wanted none of this
“flying saucer article,” but Secretary Forrestal’s approval forced it upon him.
The damage control would be accomplished by giving Shalett a guided tour of
AMC and a view of limited, low classification cases, plus a few “conservative”
opinions by Air Force personnel. This happened in early February.
Simultaneously, the Air Force would produce its own counter-document to be
released at the same time as the article (in late April).
At the beginning of March, Shalett, as per a previous understanding with the
Air Force, sent the Directorate of Intelligence a draft of his article for review.9
The Directorate disapproved printing it. It listed four problems. There was
objection to Shalett stating a formal Air Force position, and claiming that his
primary information source was the Air Force (even though it was). The
Directorate did not want Irving Langmuir quoted as deprecating the Air Force
UFO project, and they wanted no statement that the Air Force and the Navy
were not cooperating in these investigations. In the published two-part article, it
appears that Shalett revised his draft to accommodate these objections. Although
one can identify commentary that seems to lead up to such declarations, these
four points are not directly stated by Shalett.10 Langmuir, a thoroughly irascible
character, was violently anti-UFO and “suggested” (to put it mildly) that the Air
Force not even bother to look at the phenomenon (a surprising and paradoxically
unscientific attitude for one so honored as a scientist), but at least he was not
quoted as trashing the Air Force itself. The bigger problem rumbling beneath the
surface was a rift between the Air Force and the Navy, of which we will see clear
evidence as we continue.
The tenor of the first part of Shalett’s article is quite positive towards the
mystery, starting with a brief retelling of several classic cases without much in
the way of allusion and mockery. The back part of this first piece then begins
laying out all the things that are mistaken for aerial anomalies. This first
installment was a fairly even-handed introduction to the mystery.11
A week later, part two of the piece begins laying down the anti-mystery
thunder. The Air Force’s biggest names (Vandenberg, Norstad. McCoy, Spaatz,
and LeMay) are lined up with one debunking comment or example after another.
“Vertigo,” “dizziness,” “hallucination,” and “stupor” leading to “self-hypnosis”
are brought in to reduce (generically) the whole mystery to some unfortunate
error. The Fargo “dogfight” is singled out for a particularly detailed trashing.
Hoaxes and mass hysteria are then added to the list of the stewpot of errors,
building up to Dr. Langmuir and his “Forget it!” climax quote on UFOs. One
wonders what all the pilots, scientists, engineers, and just plain honest folks who
had seen UFOs in circumstances not involving dizziness, stupor, and mass
hysteria thought about this treatment. This exact issue, the trashing of peoples’
reports (and by association, aspects of their character), immediately became
another serious problem for the Air Force. People—even within the military—
began to refuse to report their sightings to the Air Force.
We do not know whether Shalett himself felt guilty about the tenor of his
treatment, but he reversed course at the tail end of the article to write
sympathetically about the Chiles-Whitted case, and of the men themselves. He
then told the readers that they really should report their cases and gave them
hints on how to make good observations.
On the whole the Shalett “problem” had not turned out too badly. But,
strangely, it was the Air Force’s own simultaneous information management
press release that got them in hot water.
We have mentioned that the Pentagon feared what Shalett would say and had
recommended that it prepare a simultaneous document for damage control. As
January and February proceeded, apparently no one took care of this. As Shalett
finished his draft there was apparently a need to get something going which
could be released to the press alongside it. This is where documents are lacking
that could explain what seems to be a major gaff. During March, when the
Pentagon was sleeping on this, some persons at AMC Project SIGN/Grudge
decided to write the “companion piece.”12 An enigmatic fragment of a released
document dated April 6 notifies the Pentagon that this has been completed. It
was entitled The Flying Saucer Story. Perhaps it was specifically ordered by the
Pentagon, believing that a Grudge-like attitude would be evoked. We do not
know who wrote it, but the attitude reflected the beliefs of “SIGN.” As
publication of Shalett’s piece became imminent, Major Boggs finally read it and
queried Generals Cabell and Moore as to how to handle it.13 He recommended
removing certain speculation from the writing, plus making it only available to
persons who would physically present themselves at the Pentagon and read the
report there. Otherwise, he felt, many briefs of cases et al. should be allowed to
remain in the document since Shalett had viewed similar material and this
document might get other reporters off their backs and, more importantly, not
talking to AMC. Some exchanges and disagreements went on between General
Cabell and Public Information Officer Stephen Leo, but we do not know the
substance of this interchange.14 One thing this back-and-forth did was to shove
the decision right up onto the Saturday Evening Post publishing date. So, on
April 27, 1949, (Shalett’s date was the 30th), the Air Force released the re-titled
Project “Saucer.”15
The release is quite remarkable, given what the Pentagon thought they were
trying to accomplish. The attitude, as noted above, was pure SIGN. Even on the
issue of possible extraterrestrial spacecraft the writer risked stating “almost a
complete impossibility,” and followed with a number of solid and dramatic
cases, including Arnold, the Portland policemen case, Muroc, Mantell, Chiles-
Whitted, and the Fargo dogfight. All were discussed as if unidentified, including
Mantell. The Air Force release was far more positive than was the article it was
meant to dampen! Later in the release the writer included material taken from
James Lipp and George Valley on extraterrestrial possibilities and how one
might make a spacecraft go. There were hints that although it was unlikely, it
was not impossible that not only life but also even intelligent life could live on
Mars and Venus. Speculation was included on why such life could now be
visiting Earth. The odds of such intelligent life were given as “at least a
thousand to one”—a long way from “impossible.” The writer went on to say that
very advanced life in deep space is essentially a certainty, but could it get here?
A speculation on converting nuclear fuel is then made and applied to a trip from
a nearby suitable star: time of flight estimate =16 years. More difficulties are
admitted, but the odds have reduced to “highly improbable. ” Then the “foreign”
aircraft (read: Soviet) theory is stated and quickly debunked with one sentence.
In summary, all the thinking on the possibility of extraterrestrial craft has been
“largely conjecture”—not flatly conjecture or pure bunk. Whoever was writing
this was taking serious liberties with the Pentagon view of not encouraging
extraterrestrial thinking at all. The report ends with: “The saucers are not a joke.
Neither are they cause for alarm.”
Once again, Air Force policy and actions regarding the UFO phenomenon
were chaotic, contradictory, and all over the map. As this is a study of the
government involvement with the phenomenon, we underplay the civilian
involvement here, but one break in this orientation deserves to be made (at least
in mention) now. This strange, backwards dichotomy of a civilian writer
producing an Air Force-aided piece much more negative than the twinned Air
Force release alongside it utterly boggled the mind of a civilian writer
researching whether there was really a story to UFOs or not. This writer was
retired Marine Major Donald Keyhoe.16 He could not understand how he could
be reading what was in the Project “Saucer” release. His only answer was that
there must be some big disagreement among authorities in the Air Force (as we
have seen, a good guess), and that one group felt that there was much of
importance in this (despite the public comments of the big wheels) and that they
used this release as a way to get their ideas out there. Keyhoe was right about his
first two guesses and may even have been right about the third. What we know
for sure is that this publicity gaff turned him into the biggest advocate for the
phenomenon’s importance, and consequently the biggest thorn in the Air Force’s
side for the next twenty-odd years.
Even though Keyhoe had yet to get started with his criticisms of the Air
Force, they were already having plenty of difficulty managing things without
him. As mentioned, in January leaks were already occurring about the
Pentagon’s concerns, as the AMC liaison officer to the Nuclear Energy for the
Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) project at Oak Ridge National Laboratories stated
to the FBI, at length, his views that the flying disks were human-made nuclear-
powered those missiles originating in the USSR, views that he felt paralleled
those of the Pentagon.17 A couple of months later, famous radio newsman
Walter Winchell was booming the same declaration all over the country, to the
Air Force’s distress.18 By July, declaration the idea all of the Soviet nuclear-
powered saucer was featured again, this time by writer Frederick Moorehouse in
Argosy magazine.19 The Air Force was harvesting rotten fruit from its allegedly
secret conclusions that the flying disks were real but neither our own nor
interplanetary. The idea that people would be satisfied with simply “unknown”
or “mysterious” flew in the face of human nature.
High authorities in the military wanted answers, too, and we know that at the
same time as the Shalett affair, the Air Force was getting urgent inquiries from at
least the Army.20 This indicated to General Cabell that he needed to make a
presentation to the “Joint Intelligence Committee.” (JIC) In order to understand
this, we should explain what the JIC was.
 The National Security Act of 1947,21 among other things, created the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS). This was a military super committee composed of the
chiefs of staff of the three major services (the Marine Corps commandant was
sometimes included), plus one super chief, who usually rotated through the
services. The reason for the JCS was that modern warfare, cold or hot, required
plenty of interservice cooperation to function properly. The real work of the JCS
was done by deputies for each chief plus their staffs, and a JCS secretary, of high
rank.
Beneath the JCS were mainly three important subcommittees that fed strategy
information, analysis, and strategy “upwards.”22 They were the “Joint Strategic
Plans Committee,” the “Joint Logistics Plans Committee,” and the “Joint
Intelligence Committee.” Cabell not only sat on the JIC but was also its chair.
Cabell’s decision in April of 1949 to make a presentation on flying disks
indicated that he thought that this was a critical topic at the moment and needed
to be brought forward all the way to the JCS.
Thankfully, this is a document that we have. It is eight pages and Top Secret.
Written by a major in “Air Estimates,” the document amounts to another mini-
estimate of the situation for the Joint Chiefs. It was vetted by the chief of Air
Estimates, Colonel B.E. Allen, and Cabell’s executive officer, Colonel John
Schweizer. The main points were these:
1. Because of difficulties inherent in these type of reports, “positive
identification” is extremely difficult;
2. The objects are mainly spherical in shape or elliptical; secondly, disk-
like; thirdly, cylindrical;
3. Many incidents may be attributable to human error or the sighting of
known technology or astronomical objects;
4. An analysis of the spacecraft concept by the RAND Corporation
concluded that there are no reports “which would go against a rational
explanation;”
5. In New Mexico, there has been a “repeated occurrence of green fireball
phenomena,” causing considerable concern. Current thinking is that there
is some sort of upper atmospheric phenomenon;
6. The creditable unexplained incidents that might involve the use of
atomic powered craft should be studied by the AEC and top
 aerodynamicists as a concern of the defense intelligence agencies;
7. There are numerous reports from reliable and competent observers for
which a conclusive explanation has not been made. Some of these involve
descriptions that would place them in the category of new manifestations
of probable natural phenomena, but others involve configurations and
described performance that might conceivably represent an advanced
aerodynamic development. A few unexplained incidents surpass these
limits of credibility.23

There is much in Cabell’s JIC estimate. It is certainly an attitudinal opposite to
the manufactured debunking statements that the Air Force big wheels gave to
Shalett to quote in his articles. So again, it is the understandable Janus face:
serious, on-the-alert concern on the “Inside,” relaxed, calming dissembling for
the public “Outside.” Looking more specifically, the JIC estimate is a natural
evolution from the early estimates of 1947 and the AIR-100 document. Added to
those is “new” knowledge, such as the RAND opinion, and new concerns, such
as the “green fireballs” of New Mexico (we will address that mystery, later). One
thing relating to RAND should be mentioned. It appears to be true that it is in the
dealing with RAND that the term “reasonable” begins to get replaced with
“rational.”24 This may seem a small matter, and perhaps it is. But, as we know,
“reasonable” and “rational” do not quite have the same tone. This is especially
true when one uses them in the negative. “Irrational” is a term that persons such
as Irving Langmuir use to type those things which are so a priori unthinkable
that they are simply foolish and insane. The flying disk reality was not so
considered in the intelligence community in the years we are discussing (by
anyone who drove opinion and policy, anyway). Even the extraterrestrial
possibilities were not so painted (as we’ve seen via Lipp and Valley). Such
possibilities were highly unlikely and improbable, but not irrational. This is
raised now, because, as years of investigation pass, the label of irrational (that is,
foolish and insane) begins to be applied to the UFO phenomenon and those who
are interested in it. Cabell himself did not view any of this as irrational despite
using the “rational” allusion in his estimate. It is likely that it snuck in there due
to the military conservatism of using the exact words of a reference document
wherever they can in composing their own. The most striking thing within the
estimate is, of course, the main summary paragraph: “there are reliable,
competent observers, who report unknowns. Some of these look like advances in
aerodynamics. Some surpass even that. ”
The green fireballs of New Mexico are a complicated business. Were they part
of the flying disk mystery, or a coincidental sideshow? Were they more, or less,
likely to be Soviet mischief? Who was investigating them? Who should have
been? Whatever was going on here in late 1948 and into 1949, it thoroughly
alarmed some of the authorities. However we now choose to look at this episode,
it became entwined with all the UFO concerns, puzzlements, and incompetence
that we have been discussing.
One can, if one wishes, see the green fireball mystery as a so-called “mini-
flap” of incidents (a group of sightings fairly concentrated in time and spatial
circumstances). The period: December 1948 to January 1949. The location: New
Mexico, particularly near atomic laboratory installations (especially Los Alamos
and Sandia). There were other times and places of incidents, but it was this
“flap” that awakened concern.25
In the following narrative, we will parallel the outstanding write-up of the
beginning of our concern about the green fireball phenomenon in Jerome Clark’s
foundational UFO Encyclopedia (which we recommend to readers for many
topical subjects within the UFO field). Clark, an esteemed colleague in UFO
history, wrote a masterful essay on the fireballs, based upon research entirely
from the Project Blue Book documents regarding these original incidents. The
readers may consider reading his more artful telling of these occurrences which
we will merely outline below.
The first of anything is always debatable, but for our purposes 9:05 p.m. on
December 5, 1948 will do. At that time, an Air Force pilot and co-pilot, flying
near Las Vegas, New Mexico, saw a bright green aerial flash. Near Albuquerque,
N.M., another green light flashed through the air. The officers contacted Kirtland
AFB air traffic control. Kirtland then began questioning flight officers, both
military and civilian, as to whether they had contacted unusual lights during
flights.
By December 6, Kirtland’s commander of the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations (AFOSI), Lt. Colonel Doyle Rees, was already concerned that the
green lights might be products of Soviet technology. Two of his chief operatives,
Captains Neef and Stahl, began interviewing governmental organizations as to
whether anything that they were doing might relate to flying green flares. Just as
in 1947, when Colonel George Garrett and General George Shulgen of the
Pentagon were asking similar questions about flying disks, all inquiries came
back: not ours.
Neef and Stahl decided upon an aerial reconnaissance of the airspaces within
which green flare lights had been seen. After they reached 5000 feet, they got
their own dose of the mystery. The Blue Book documents describe their
encounter.

At an estimated altitude of 2,000 feet higher than the airplane... a brilliant
green light was observed coming toward the airplane at a rapid rate of
speed from approximately 30 degrees to the left of course, from 60 degrees
ENE, to 240 degrees WSW. The object was similar in appearance to a
burning green flare of common use in the Air Force. However, the light
was much more intense and the object appeared to be considerably larger
than a normal flare. No estimate can be made of the distance or the size of
the object since no other object was visible upon which to base a
comparison. The object was definitely larger and more brilliant than a
shooting star, meteor, or flare. The trajectory of the object when first
sighted was almost flat and parallel to the earth. The phenomenon lasted
approximately two seconds at the end of which the object seemed to burn
out. The trajectory then dropped off rapidly and a trail of glowing
fragments reddish orange in color was observed falling toward the ground.
The fragments were visible less than a second before disappearing. The
phenomenon was of such intensity as to be visible from the very moment it
ignited and was observed a split second later.26

Sightings such as these, and others that began coming in on a daily basis,
seemed to be showing a pattern of too much familiarity with the big atomic
laboratories. Fortunately, Colonel Rees knew that he had, locally, one of the
nation’s leading experts in the study of meteors, Dr. Lincoln LaPaz. LaPaz had
often been an Air Force and Army consultant on atmospheric phenomena. LaPaz
was extremely interested and had, in fact, already been collecting some
information on the fireballs. He agreed to make an investigation on December
9.27 At a multi-agency meeting called by Colonel Rees on the 11th, everyone
said that nothing they were involved with produced this sort of phenomenon.28
So, on the 12th, LaPaz went on the hunt.
LaPaz and two Kirtland officers were driving on a desert road near Bernal,
N.M. There in the sky was a green fireball flying above the horizon. LaPaz
timed the trajectory at 2.2 seconds and thought that it was essentially horizontal.
“Horizontal trajectory” meant “Not meteoric” to LaPaz. Because a second
simultaneous sighting of this object was reported, a triangulation was possible.
The plot indicated a twenty-five mile path flying directly away from Los
Alamos. LaPaz was convinced that this could not have been a meteor. LaPaz:

none of the green fireballs has a train of sparks or a dust cloud. . . . This
contrasts sharply with the behavior noted in cases of meteoritic fireballs—
particularly those that penetrate to the very low levels where the green
fireball of December 12 was observed. . . . On the basis of the various
differences . . . the writer remains of the opinion that the fireball . .. was
definitely non-meteoric and that in all probability the same is true of most,
if not all, the other bright green fireballs. . . .29

LaPaz and the Atomic Energy Security Service felt that a possible threat was
realistic enough that a patrol using “fast” astronomical quality cameras was
authorized. They had no luck initially. But just as the patrol was getting ready to
quit on the night of December 20, another green fireball appeared. This was also
sighted in two places and the resultant triangulation indicated an almost opposite
path to the fireball of the 12th. This fireball’s path seemed directly towards Los
Alamos.
By the end of December, Rees and LaPaz felt that they had, at a minimum, ten
well-observed cases of the unusual, slow-moving fireballs.30 LaPaz was careful
to point out that the color of these things was wrong. Green does appear in
fireball displays, but it is in the deep green and blue-green end of that color’s
spectrum. These objects were producing light at the “light green” and “yellow
green” end, something that LaPaz said he had never observed in the Geminid
meteor showers which dominated that time of the year. Rees was very concerned
that they had some kind of enemy missile, possibly involved in targeting the
atomic sites, on their hands. And (shades of the ghost rockets!), these things
seemed to disintegrate, leaving no trace to pick up and test. Colonel Rees was
already using his authority to get other OSI offices around the country to send
him any similar-sounding incidents in their areas, and a few came in from Idaho,
Oregon, and Arizona.
By January of 1949, the 4th Army Command was so alarmed that they asked
the Pentagon for help.31 This was something “in the air” so the Army handed it
to the Air Force. Remembering what was happening with the Air Force and
SIGN, this could not have come at a worse time. SIGN was crushed, humiliated,
discredited, and disintegrating. The Air Force did not want to go that route.
Luckily, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board, Dr. Joseph Kaplan, an
atmospheric physics expert from UCLA, was visiting LaPaz, and was brought up
on the problem. Kaplan received this information and a preliminary report from
an anxious LaPaz, who was absolutely convinced that the fireballs were
technology. This happened on February 8. Kaplan went on to Washington and
met with SAB chairman Theodore von Karman.32 Von Karman, though a UFO
skeptic, was impressed by this matter. He communicated to Pentagon
Intelligence that this looked like a serious issue, which needed to be
addressed.33 (A copy of von Karman’s letter is included in the appendix.) Von
Karman did not know it, but this opinion was not welcome at the time with the
current “Grudge” attitude.
Meanwhile, Rees and LaPaz were taking matters into their own hands. They
organized a conference of Los Alamos scientific luminaries. These included
Norris Bradbury, Marshall Holloway, Frederick Reines, and Edward Teller,
father of the hydrogen bomb. Also included were LaPaz, two Air Force
witnesses, and a Sandia representative.34 Rees sent his investigator/aide,
Captain M.E. Neef, to introduce the problem and give background on Air Force
UFO investigations. LaPaz detailed the cases so far, including his own
observation. He said that there were ten incidents that strongly fit the pattern and
20 more that might do so. Teller thought that the phenomenon must be “electro-
optical” (i.e. more of a “light” nature than “mass”) due to the lack of sound.
Bradbury was not ready to agree with him, feeling that this was a problem no
matter which way one looked at it. The scientists took some heart in the fact that,
if Teller was right, these observations were not of massive objects like missiles.
Everyone agreed that they should be concerned and alert about these things and
do more to explain them. Back at the Pentagon, however, Major Boggs was
writing a Grudge-oriented opinion that none of this was likely to be of
significance, and that analyses such as those pursued by Allen Hynek for Grudge
would, in time, prove that.35
Boggs and Hynek were not on the same page. Hynek, a friend of LaPaz,
received the green fireball facts and assessment from him and wrote:

Dr. Lincoln LaPaz has summarized thoroughly the nature of these
incidents and, particularly, has noted the reasons why the objects
concerned cannot be dismissed as ordinary meteoric phenomena. Dr.
LaPaz is an extremely able man in the field of meteoritics and an
enthusiastic, almost to the point of extravagance, investigator and worker.
On the basis of the description on hand, I concur in his conclusions: Dr.
LaPaz, who is "on location" and has observed at least one of these objects
at first hand, should be fully supported in a continued investigation.
Apart from the unusual appearance of the objects, the pattern of incidents
is particularly striking. It would be exceedingly unlikely that so many
meteors would appear in that small sector of the Southwest and nowhere
else; if they did, they would not have consistently horizontal paths and
head in a consistent direction. These points alone are sufficient to dismiss
the meteoric hypothesis. It is entirely possible that, among the many
incidents reported, one or two of the objects may have been fireballs, thus
serving to confuse the issue, but a blanket explanation of that sort is
improbable.
I would suggest that Dr. Jack Workman, Director of the New Mexico
School of Mines, be contacted. He is conducting highly classified
experiments in very high velocity projectiles and may be in a position to
offer a worthwhile opinion. High velocity experiments, probably in
connection with preliminary trials in the production of artificial meteors or
artificial satellites, may prove to be the explanation of these incidents.
Such experiments would not be conducted at any of the recognized air
bases so far contacted.36

Note that Hynek introduced some inside information about top-secret “artificial
meteor-launching” experiments that he, somehow, knew about. This is
reminiscent of other such high velocity launches accomplished by Dr. Fritz
Zwicky a few years earlier in the region. LaPaz was involved in those
experiments and should have known about intermediate and current projects.
Plus, he knew that the Navy was doing something involving “meteor
photography” at White Sands, but could not get their cooperation on information
sharing. LaPaz’ and perhaps Hynek’s views were moving towards “artificial
meteors” which burn up with a distinctive color but, for the moment, were not
“our” artificial meteors.
Rees became more and more upset with the Pentagon’s and AMC’s inactivity.
AMC was ordered to send someone down, finally. The meeting, on February 24,
was hostile.38 After some angry exchanges about whose business this was and
what should be done about it, the attendees finally agreed that there should be an
organized observation and patrol project, manned by Air Force personnel, and
looking for ground fragments and spectrum pictures.
Two months passed, with no action from AMC or the Pentagon. Rees sent
another report. Then a letter: was AMC going to act or not? Pushed by concerns
from the Atomic Energy commission, General Cabell decided that it was time,
but not for Grudge (they were to be left out of it). Cabell sent Kaplan to New
Mexico on April 27, bringing news that a network of observation posts and a
project to attempt to sample the air after a green fireball overflight was approved
and to be implemented immediately.39 The only AMC role was to organize
troops for the task of night patrol observations. Somewhat oddly, as this latter
was Rees’ idea, the Pentagon batted this idea around for the entire month of
June, the analysis being again in the hands of Major Boggs, and he denied it.40
Boggs had, once more, given a “Grudge” opinion that there probably was not
anything to this anyway, so why should AMC be burdened with an extra duty.
On June 24, a fireball flyover resulted in an apparently successful air
sampling.41 The analysis was, in LaPaz’ mind, flatly abnormal. It showed
copper. And copper “burned” green. Meteors, LaPaz reminded, have almost no
copper—ever. This cinched, in his mind, that the things were human-made
missiles of some kind. Late in the summer, reports like the above and continued
communications-of- concem by the bases and the AEC, brought Kaplan and Air
Force Research and Development to call for a summit meeting of top experts on
the problem. The Pentagon, with its usual glacial pace, took another month
before it ordered General Chidlaw, the new commanding officer at AMC, to
make an evaluation of the data so far.42 Chidlaw was not to assign this to Project
Grudge, but rather to the Cambridge Research Laboratories of the Directorate for
Geophysical Research. A meeting was arranged at Los Alamos on October
14.43
Most of the previous players attended (LaPaz, Neef, Rees, Kaplan, Bradbury,
Reines, and Teller). FBI agents were present. So was atmospheric physics expert
Stanislaw Ulam. Cambridge Research Station was represented by Major F. C. E.
Oder, not only of the Air Force, but also of the CIA. No one could agree on an
explanation, but all admitted that the concentration of the events around Los
Alamos and Sandia did not sound like a natural phenomenon, and was a bit
ominous. They proposed that a field project be run out of Oder’s lab, with
LaPaz’ help. Kaplan pushed for the project and, perhaps aided by another letter
of concern by the AEC in November, the Air Force’s Research and Development
Board approved it. The independent-of-Grudge project was initiated in February
of 1950 as “Project Twinkle.”44 But, albeit still muddled in the confusion over
all this, we will now return to 1949 before picking up the last of this story, in the
next chapter.
Whether or not green fireballs were part of the UFO phenomenon in 1949,
there were several spectacular cases that were. Right in the middle of the
shenanigans in the New Mexican desert, our greatest observational astronomer
saw a UFO. At his Las Cruces home, on a summer night of spectacular
transparency, Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of Pluto and leader of many
nocturnal missile - launch observation teams for the White Sands Proving
Grounds, was relaxing with his wife and mother, enjoying the heavens’ display.
Then something appeared. Tombaugh’s own words are best. A copy of the
original letter is shown on the next page.45 Tombaugh did not run to the papers
with this story, nor formally report it to AMC. But he talked with his friends and
colleagues who worked out of White Sands. Many of them had already seen
unusual objects in the sky. Tombaugh himself had seen two other “unknowns”
and three green fireballs. He felt that these objects “defied any explanation of
known phenomena, such as Venus, atmospheric optics, meteors, or planes.”46

AN UNUSUAL AERIAL PHENOMENON

 by
Clyde W. Tombaugh

I saw the object about eleven o’clock one night in August, 1949 from the
backyard of my home in Las Cruces, New Mexico. I happened to be looking at
zenith, admiring the beautiful transparent sky of stars, when suddenly I spied a
geometrical group of faint bluish-green rectangles of light similar to the
"Lubbock lights". My wife and her mother were sitting in the yard with mr: and
they saw them also. The group moved south-southeasterly, the individual
rectangles became foreshortened, their space of formation smaller, (at first about
one degree across) and the intensity duller, fading from view at about 35 degrees
above the horizon. Total time of visibility was about three seconds. I was too
flabbergasted to count the number of rectangles of light, or to note some other
features 1 wondered about later. There was no sound. I have done thousands of
hours of night sky watching, but never saw a sight so strange as this. The
rectangles of light were of low luminosity; had there been a full moon in the sky,
I am sure they would not have been visible.

July 1949, Longview, Washington: An air show was in progress as part of

local 4th of July celebrations (this event was on the 3rd). Over 200 people were
in attendance. At the microphone was local aero-technology legend, retired
commander Moulton Taylor. Military and civilian pilots speckled the crowd. As
an air performer engaged in a skywriting demonstration, Taylor noticed
something else in the sky—something not on the program. Taylor used the
public address system to direct attention to the “visitor.” The object, in
binoculars, looked like a discus, with a metal-like reflective top surface and a
darker bottom. As people were ordered into silence, no sound was heard. The
object had “an undulating motion with its thwart ship axis rocking
approximately thirty degrees above and below level” (that is, through 60° in all).
It moved slowly, then undulated more rapidly as it accelerated. There was no
shock wave. Especially amazing to Taylor was the object’s ability to make
abrupt “seemingly right angle comers.” Referring to his wartime work as
Officer-in-Charge of Guided Missile Research under Admiral Delmar Fahmey
(the Navy’s program) he said:

It was in that capacity that we had extensive experience in the actual
handling of guided missiles and pilot less aircraft by means of Radio
Control . . . We flew the first jet and rocket-powered controlled missiles
ever successfully launched in this country, and of course accumulated
many hours of flying of aircraft of various types by remote control. We
believe that this experience somewhat qualifies us for the remote
observation of aircraft and flight phenomena.47

The phenomenon had thereby been witnessed by one of the best-qualified
technologists that the U.S. could offer. What did he think that it was? Writing in
1957, Taylor said this:

The sighting was definitely of some flying object unlike anything then or
even presently known ... Many of the other observers at that time are still
in the area and we have discussed this particular incident whenever UFOs
are mentioned. Everyone still agrees that it was not an airplane or any
other reasonably well explained object. I have spent many hours looking
for other such objects, but have never been successful since. I only wish
one would land and that I could be there to interview them. Ha.48

May 1949, Rogue River, Oregon:49 A group of people were taking a vacation,
getting away to nature and doing some fishing. Five adults were in a boat. It was
still daylight, about 5 p.m. A round object manifested itself, like a brilliant
mirror standing on edge. The witnesses had binoculars and passed them around.
Two of the group worked for the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
(NACA, the predecessor of NASA). One worked with the Moffett Field (CA)
Supersonic Wind Tunnel, and the other as a drafter (thereby being familiar with
fine details of aerodynamic designs). So, we have two more unusually qualified
observers. The device was flat on the bottom and judged to have a diameter of
25-30 feet. There was an edge (somewhat like the edge of a thick coin), perhaps
a foot high. The top was gently convex, and there was a thick “fin” which began
about mid-ship and rose slowly but still was only a modest elevation at the rear.
We can thank the unusual situation that this sighting featured an observer who
could draw. A copy of that drawing is shown on page 84.
As usual, there was no noise, nor evidence of a jet stream. The object seemed
to fly at normal jet plane speed. Both NACA employees were impressed that the
object made a turn without needing to tilt or bank to accomplish it. The reader
may wonder how a hostile (i.e. Project Grudge) Air Force dealt with reports like
this. On the project record card is typed: “No data presented to indicate object
could NOT have been an aircraft. Conclusion: AIRCRAFT.” One wonders what
the NACA men would have said if they had been informed of the Air Force’s
solution.
September 1949, Lexington, Nebraska:50 Six members of a farming
enterprise were threshing wheat when they saw three objects coming from the
general direction of the sun (southwest at about 6:30 p.m.). As the objects
proceeded they gave off a dazzling brilliance. They maintained a level flight
with two of the objects changing positions as they flew. The power of the
illumination remained constant throughout the incident (i.e. no pulses or
flashes). Once the objects reached a direction northwest of the observers, they
made a smooth 90 degree turn straight upwards and climbed rapidly out of sight.
One of the farmers was a recent graduate of a two-year course in aeronautical
design and thought the objects looked like a domed-disk when viewed face-
forward, but were actually like a stubby, wingless, tailless fuselage when seen
from the side. About five miles away, four other persons saw what they felt were
two fast-moving objects flying in the distance at level flight before abruptly
turning straight up and flying away from the Earth. This group of people did not
know their distant “neighbors.” How did Grudge handle this case? They
apparently “lost” it. The only record seems to be the local Offutt Air Force Base
investigation found in the files of Air Force consultant J. Allen Hynek. The
project microfilms simply note: “Case missing.” The case (six adult witnesses,
four independent corroborative witnesses, abnormal aircraft structure and
striking flight plan—disappearing straight upwards) can stand on its own as one
worth remembering, but it is mentioned here to illustrate the incompetent neglect
that characterized the Grudge period.
April 1949, Arrey, New Mexico:51 In the midst of extreme Pentagon
confusion over Sidney Shalett, the Project “Saucer” release fiasco, and trying to
decide what to do about Green Fireballs, a sighting occurred which in many
military and intelligence community minds became the poster child for
unidentified objects. The reason for this status was not the spectacular quality of
the phenomenon, but the spectacular quality of the witnesses.
The witnesses formed the Navy’s top Secret balloon- launching Project Team,
a group of the best-trained and experienced object-trackers in the world, and
scientists who had “seen it all.” The prestige and discipline of Dr. Charles
Moore’s team was such that even Grudge caved in and admitted that this was an
“unidentified.” As said, the case hardly wows one if taken apart from the
circumstances. The team was launching a mid-morning balloon and tracking it
with a theodolite. Looking visually, the team members initially thought they had
picked up their balloon, but then realized it was something else. It was moving
rapidly to the east, a white ellipsoid with a light yellow band on one side as if a
shadow. The object altered to a northerly direction (none of this being in the
same direction that the wind was taking their own balloon). The new object
seemed to be rising all the way until it disappeared in the distance. The balloon
experts’ flat statement: “the object was not a balloon.” But, given size, speed,
and shape, what else could it be? Moore made what he felt were some
reasonable assumptions based upon observations, experience, and knowledge of
the current conditions. He guessed that the object was at about 300,000 feet
when over their launch station. If true, it would have been about 100 feet in
diameter. Once again, we must remember as the Air Force did, Moore and his
team knew all about the big polyethylene balloons manufactured at General
Mills and flown under Project Mogul et al. They were, after all, the ones who
were flying them. Moore, later in the year, concluded:

We did see an object under almost ideal observational conditions, which
we cannot explain nor rationalize, but we do not claim that it was
necessarily a flying disk or space ship.52

Upon hearing how the Air Force had tried to debunk his team’s case, and several
other such high- quality observations. Moore had one other insightful thing to
say:
It appears from reading the report analysis that the Air Forces have been
more interested in disproving or casting doubt on all unidentified object
observations rather than any attempt to evaluate or explore them. It is
believed that should some object, extra-terrestrial in origin, actually be
observed, this group would spend more time disproving its existence than
 investigating it.53

The Arrey-Moore sighting was just one of a surprising (to say the least)
number of incidents involving our Top Secret balloon projects. We will say more
about this later, but suffice it to say for now that there was a specific request for
General Mills teams to log every incident.54 Arrey was also just one of a set of
sightings involving personnel from White Sands Proving Grounds. More about
this later also, as we address the affair with Commander Robert McLaughlin’s
publication of these facts (much to the distress of the Air Force). These cases
involving Naval personnel or projects seem to have created a real rift between
the Navy and the Air Force on this subject.
All this activity in New Mexico stimulated the formation at both White Sands
and Los Alamos of informal groups of scientists who became interested in the
mystery, and spent some of their time in watch groups or otherwise trying to
study it. We do not know much about the White Sands people, but a little more
about the “Los Alamos Birdwatchers Association.”55
The Birdwatchers was not their original nickname. As a member of the group
attested, they were

...a group of our physicists (who) set up watches to observe and record the
mysterious green fireballs.56 As watching progressed, we armed ourselves
with a camera and grating to try to photograph the spectrum of the light.
We set up a Doppler meteor detector. . . and a low frequency
electromagnetic listening and recording device.

Though obviously serious and talented, the group was unable to get a correlation
between an overflight and a reading on one of those instruments. Later on, that
changed.
The group was composed of ten physicists, several of whom were Los
Alamos heavyweights (one of whom, Harold Agnew, became the lab’s scientific
director later in his career).57 Some of them had seen unidentified phenomena
themselves. Upon leaving his lab one evening, Fred Kalbach saw a green object,
so brilliant that he could “read a newspaper” by it, fly over the location,
apparently soundlessly, abruptly change direction without slowing, and rapidly
disappear over the Jemez mountains. The wife of a second member, herself an
explosives expert, was in a remote canyon destroying outdated charges, when
she witnessed the same thing. “The sightings were so numerous that a group of
us staff members produced a reporting form and encouraged those who saw
these events to fill out the check list. Over a period of say three months, we
collected possibly 50 reports.”58
The group announced its desire to the Air Force, the FBI, (and doubtless, by
procedure, the CIA) to participate in aiding the Air Force’s attempt to solve the
mystery. The Air Force approved. The group felt that they already had several
observations within the first week. They hoped to prove or disprove two
hypotheses: the things are a natural phenomenon of the (i.e. something like
meteors or auroras); and the things are human-made.59 Fred Kalbach said later:
“I have personally attempted to follow up on some of the reports of others only
to conclude that there are many things which competent observers have seen
which cannot be explained in terms of our present knowledge.”60 Meanwhile,
something taking place at another scientific establishment would concern both
the Birdwatchers and the Air Force project. Many persons interested in science
know that for many years the world’s most prestigious telescope was the great
200-inch reflector at Mt. Palomar, California. What most do not know is that
Palomar was also the site of other scientific experiments. One of these was a
cosmic-ray measuring project run by the Naval Electronic Laboratory (NEL).
This project involved radiation counting equipment housed in the Observatory’s
powerhouse, located about 800 feet from the dome. The chart recorders were
checked regularly by personnel Attachéd to the observatory and, less frequently,
by NEL members who had to travel to get there. On at least two occasions in
1949, interesting coincidences occurred: there was a fly-by of an unidentified
object, and the cosmic ray counters surged.61 We do not know much about the
two (or more) sightings other than they somehow involved Dr. Ben Traxler of
the Observatory and Dr. William Carter, who was completing his doctorate from
Cal Tech at the time, and would soon be heading to Los Alamos. We do know
one incident in a great deal of detail, however, that being the one by the
observatory’s weather bureau observer.
October 1949, Mt. Palomar, California:62 Harley Marshall had finished his
work at the dome and was driving over to the powerhouse to check on both the
permanent weather instruments and the NEL Geiger counter. To his left and
above he noticed a light reflection and motion. He looked closely: nine highly
reflective objects were moving swiftly in a geometric pattern (a “V” of “V’s”:
imagine three triangles in formation to create a larger one). The objects were
“circular” with no wings nor projections, and moved, despite their great speed,
without sound or jet trail. They disappeared while never breaking their geometric
formation. Mr. Marshall said that he was quite excited as he drove up to the
powerhouse to complete his work. Once inside, he saw that the radiation counter
had risen to a rapid peak and then tailed off in a slower decline. Wondering if
there could be a connection, he called Traxler, who came over, viewed the
counter and was impressed. They then immediately called NEL. The Navy
technicians arrived within two hours, making jokes until they saw the chart
recorder. Also quite excited, they suddenly became serious and said that no one
should talk about this until higher authorities were brought in. Sometime later, a
Naval officer arrived and told everyone not to discuss the event. Some
information, though not apparently an actual report, got to the Air Force
eventually, but it appears that the Navy largely withheld the information from the
Air Force. Dr. Carter took his information to the Los Alamos labs where the
“Birdwatchers” heard about it. And somehow, by means not known, the
information ultimately leaked to the hi-tech aero industry engineers of the area
within the following two years.63 So, attempts at secrecy were not like a sieve,
but things did tend sooner or later to escape into the wider domain.
By the end of 1949, the Air Force had accomplished essentially nothing on
any front except to destroy the only enthusiastic (admittedly, maybe too
enthusiastic) group that they had working on the UFO subject. The public was
confused by contrary signals. Highly qualified people—some of the best
imaginable like Tombaugh, Taylor, and Moore—had seen extremely strange
objects, and yet were hearing, both from public statements and through their
more “insider” channels of information, that the subject was considered to be
bunkum. Inside the intelligence community everything was at least that
confused. Not only did the Air Force not know what they were dealing with,
they had not figured out any method for properly dealing with the UFO
phenomenon, nor even any method for properly dealing with public information.
Compounding the Air Force’s problems, the Navy seemed already to question
Air Force competence (note the number of critical events already which
involved Naval personnel and projects). Plus, it was almost impossible to get
anyone to take the phenomenon seriously if they a) did not think that the objects
might be Soviet, or b) had not seen one themselves (or had a close colleague
who had), or c) both.
The Air Force made their next “brilliant” move at solving their problem by
announcing to everyone, both within the services and to the public, that their
project was now closed, since there was nothing to be concerned with in the
phenomenon anyway. The Grudge report was finished on December 30.64 In the
midst of almost nothing but negativity in its pages was one ominous note: a
recommendation that this situation be checked for psychological warfare
implications.65

Notes
1 Blue Book microfilm Roll 4.
2 Hynek, Grudge Report.
3 Blue Book microfilm Roll 4.
4 Project SIGN.
5 George Valley, “Some Considerations Affecting the Interpretation of Reports
of Unidentified Flying Objects,” Grudge Report, Appendix D.
6 James Lipp, “Space Ship Considerations,” Grudge Report, Appendix E-2.
7 Robert Wood, personal communication (James Lipp was Dr. Robert Wood’s
uncle).
8 Charles P. Cabell, A Man of Intelligence (edited by Charles P. Cabell, Jr.),
1997.
9 Major de La Vigne for Brigadier General Moore, memorandum for record, 2
March 1949 and Major de La Vigne for Brigadier General Moore, memorandum,
subject: “Proposed Magazine Article by Sidney Shalett,” 22 March 1949, FOIA
(USAF).
10 Sidney Shalett, “What You Can Believe About Flying Saucers (Part 1),”
Saturday Evening Post, 30 April 1949: 20-21, 136-139, and Part 2, 7 May 1949:
36, 184-186.
11 Ruppelt, draft, 61-63.
12 Nuckols to Colonel Smith, 6 April 1949. (“Smith” is Colonel Sony Smith,
Director, Air Information Division, Directorate of Public Relations); and
Stephen F. Leo to Director of Intelligence, memorandum, subject: “Flying
Saucer Story,” (day unreadable) April 1949, FOIA (USAF).
13 Major Boggs for General Moore, memorandum for record (re: “Flying Saucer
Story” release), 25 April 1949, FOIA (USAF).
14 Cover sheet for correspondence: General Cabell’s note to AFOAI on redraft
of response, 21 April 1949, FOIA (USAF).
15 Anonymous author(s), Project “Saucer, ” 27 April 1949.
16 Donald Keyhoe, The Flying Saucers are Real, 1950; and see Clark’s
Encyclopedia, entry: “Keyhoe, Donald Edward.”
17 C. C. McSwain to J. Edgar Hoover, memorandum, subject: “Flying Saucers
Observed over Oak Ridge Area,” 10 January 1949, FOIA (FBI).
18 AFOAI for General Moore, memorandum for record, subject: to prepare
response to Walter Winchell’s comments of 3 April 1949,4 April 1949, FOIA
(USAF).
19 Frederick Moorehouse, “The Case of the Flying Saucers,” Argosy, July 1949:
26ff.
20 Inquiries at this time by the Army were mainly concerned with the problem
of “green fireball” overflights of New Mexico bases, and what the Air Force was
going to do about them. See that story later in the chapter.
21 The National Security Act of 1947, title l,Sec 101[U.S.C.402].
22 Cabell (biography).
23 Air Brief Special Study: General Cabell to DCS/O Staff meeting, subject:
“Unidentified Aerial Objects,” 27 April 1949, FOIA (USAF).
24 Lt. H. W. Smith and Mr. G. W. Towles, Unidentified Flying Objects: Project
“Grudge” (Project No. XS-304), Technical Report 102-AC 49/15-100, Air
Materiel Command, Dayton, Ohio, August 1949.
25 The Green Fireballs mystery has been addressed in a variety of ways. Much
documentation has been received via USAF FOIAs of the 1949 era. The most
extensive FOIA’d document available is the following: “Conference on Aerial
Phenomena,” a 24-page report of a 16 February 1949 meeting held at Los
Alamos with a cover letter by Commander Richard Mandelkorn, USN, reporting
for Sandia base. Many other FOIA documents exist for this topic.
26 Clark, Encyclopedia, entry: “Green Fireballs and Other Southwestern
Lights,” vol. 1, 454-461.
27 Blue Book files, “Enclosure No. 1 to Investigative Report #24-8, 17th District
OSI files.”
28 Gross (1948) 81-2 lists six documents wherein USAF authorities asked
various laboratories in the air and airbases for information potentially relating to
the fireballs.
29 Clark, “Green Fireballs.”
30 Blue Book files, “Interoffice memo slip, Headquarters, Fourth Army, 29
December 1948, Major Godsoe to A c/s G-2 Army Intelligence.”
31 Office of the AC of S, G-2, Headquarters, Fourth Army, memorandum
(Summary of Information), subject: Unconventional Aircraft, 13 January 1949,
FOIA (USAF).
32 Richard Mandelkorn, USN, Sandia, transcript of “Conference on Aerial
Phenomena,” 16 February 1949, 11-12, FOIA (USAF); hereafter: Mandelkorn,
transcript.
33 Theodore von Karman to C.P. Cabell, 11 February 1949, FOIA (USAF).
34 Mandelkorn, transcript.
35 Hynek, Grudge Report.
36 Hynek, Grudge Report.
37 “Artificial Meteors,” Army Ordnance, July/August 1947: 157-163; and
Stephen M. Maurer, “Idea Man,” Beamline, Winter 2001: 21-27.
38 Gross’ Supplement p. 11.
39 Doyle Rees, Lt. Col. USAF to Director of Special Investigations, Office of
the Inspector General, USAF, Washington, DC, memorandum and letter, subject:
“Unknown (aerial phenomena),” 12 May 1949, FOIA (USAF).
40 Major Aaron J. Boggs for Col. Schweizer (and Cabell), memorandum for
record, 16 June 1949, FOIA (USAF), (another followed 28 June 1949,
coordinated by Boggs and Colonels Allen and Walsh); J. Kaplan to Major
General C. P. Cabell, 13 July 1949, FOIA (USAF).
41 Lincoln LaPaz to Colonel Doyle Rees, subject: “Anomalous Luminous
Phenomena, Sixth Report,” 17 August 1949, FOIA (USAF).
42 Colonel John Schweizer to Director of Intelligence, United States Army,
memorandum: draft letter, United States Army, 19 August 1949, FOIA (USAF).
43 Blue Book files, Lt. Colonel Doyle Rees, memorandum/letter, subject:
“Special Inquiry,” 27 October 1949; and Major Frederic Oder, letter to
Commanding General, AMC, 7 November 1949.
44 L. Elterman, Project Twinkle: Final Report, USAF Research and
Development, Washington, DC, 11 December 1951.
45 C. Tombaugh, an open letter to UFO researchers, “An Unusual Aerial
Phenomenon,” 7 August 1957, NICAP files; and J. E. McDonald, letter to
Richard Hall, 24 October 1966, NICAP files.
46 L. Stringfield (quoting letter from Tombaugh) to Ted Bloecher, 20 March
1956, CUFOS files. 47 M. Taylor to Donald Keyhoe, 28 January 1957, NICAP
files.
48 Taylor to Keyhoe, 28 January 1957.
49 Blue Book files Roll 5.
50 Blue Book files “case missing,” but materials from files found in J. Allen
Hynek case files/CUFOS.
51 Blue Book files Roll 5.
52 C. B. Moore to Adie Suehsdorf, This Week Magazine, 31 December 1949,
NICAP files.
53 C. B. Moore to Adie Suehsdorf, 23 January 1950, NICAP files.
54 Ruppelt, draft.
55 Ruppelt, draft.
56 Sidney Newburger, Security Operations Branch, USAF OSI to Carroll L.
Tyler, memorandum, subject: “Aerial Phenomena,” 30 November 1949, FOIA
(USAF).
57 Newburger to Tyler, memorandum, “Aerial Phenomena,” FOIA (USAF).
58 J. F. Kalbach to James McDonald, 1 January 1970, McDonald files,
University of Arizona archives.
59 Kalbach to McDonald, 1 January 1970.
60 Kalbach to McDonald, 1 January 1970.
61 Blue Book files (T. C. Thomas, ONR Los Angeles to chief of Naval
Research, Washington, D.C., 23 November 1949); Ruppelt draft; and Harley B.
Marshall to James McDonald, 15 January 1970, McDonald files, University of
Arizona archives.
62 Clark, Encyclopedia, entry “Civilian Saucer Investigation.”
63 Ruppelt, draft; Donald Keyhoe, Flying Saucers are Real, 1950, 149.
64 Lt. H. W. Smith and Mr. G. W. Towles, Unidentified Flying Objects: Project
“Grudge.”
65 Smith and Towles, “Project Grudge, ” 10.

 Chapter 6: Duck and Cover

The onset of the Korean War pushed UFOs off the newspapers during the second
half of 1950. This gave the Air Force a respite, for the months of March through
June caused the Pentagon some of its roughest challenges related to information
management. The Pentagon weathered these challenges, barely, but its handling
of the situation left a legacy of distrust by elements of the public, disgust by
many witnesses, and more confusion within the services.
Despite Donald Keyhoe’s best-selling article in True magazine at the
beginning of the year,1 there were few spectacular UFO incidents in the first two
months. Students of the subject (even in these early times) have speculated that
abundant concentrations of UFO observations and reports are mainly a
psychosocial phenomenon, based upon high profile publicity stories stimulating
excitable or nervous minds. But, considering the reality of UFO incident
frequency, the number of reports rarely responds to publicity in this fashion, and
the first months of 1950 ran true in this regard. Though moribund at Air Materiel
Command, Project Grudge received eleven reports in January and fourteen in
February—statistically “ordinary” in a non-flap year.2 One of the few incidents
that both puzzled the military and was leaked to the public was the Davis-
Monthan AFB, Arizona case on the first day of February.
Because of our interest in governmental response to UFO reports, and because
of our findings of a great deal of disorganization in those responses, the
following incident is worth mentioning. Early in February, the Army, Air Force,
CIA, FBI, and Department of State received an intelligence analysis from the
Navy.3 This is a mild surprise to modern historians because, although it has been
known that the Navy was getting copies of Air Force reports at least since late
1948, the existence of a formalized method of UFO case analysis by Naval
Intelligence has been only suspected. Nevertheless, in February of 1950, was
proffered an analysis from “Intelligence Division, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations.” The code for the analyzing group was OP322F2, which represented
the Naval Intelligence Technical Unit. The contents of the document clearly
show a naval intelligence analysis of a very high level.
The subject matter related to reports of unknown objects in the vicinity of
Kodiak Island, Alaska, on January 22 and 23, 1950. Although we do not have
the important data enclosures that were originally Attachéd to this document, the
situation described is still powerful. A naval patrol plane pilot reported a radar
contact 20 miles north of the naval air station in Kodiak. Eight minutes later,
another contact occurred ten miles southeast of the station. Traffic control
indicated that no traffic should be there. Intermittent interference with radar was
occurring throughout this period. Meanwhile, watchmen on the USS Tillamock
witnessed a red light (like an exhaust) come from the southeast, move in a
clockwise circle, and fly back on approximately the same course. The light made
no noise and had the appearance of a small ball of fire.
About two hours later, the pilot making the original report again received a
radar return on an object apparently five miles away and saw it visually. All
crewmembers were alerted and witnessed it as well. The object passed directly
overhead while indicating a rough airspeed of 1800 mph. The pilot climbed to
attempt intercept but “the object was too maneuverable.” The pilot tried to chase
and close, but the object kept ahead, then abruptly turned left and back and
“came up on Smith’s quarter” (we assume that this means that it was pacing the
patrol plane). The pilot considered this a threatening situation and turned off all
lights on his aircraft. The two flew together for about four minutes; then the
object left and disappeared to the southeast.
The incidents were viewed as problematical and possibly dangerous. This was
not a balloon as none were launched in the affected timeframe, and a balloon
would not have matched the observations very well anyway. Meteors were also
mentioned in the report but could not be taken seriously. The analysis contended
that, whatever this was, “the exact nature of (the phenomenon) could not be
determined by this office.” Here are the words of two of the analysts:

The opinion of OP322V2C, the Naval Deputy Director of the Air Intelligence
Divisions:
The possibility exists that incidents covered by para.2.a, b, & d might be
jet aircraft; however, there is insufficient intelligence to definitely identify
the unidentified objects as aircraft. Several reports of similar radar
interference have been received from DIO/17ND. It is possible that this is
interference from another radar in the vicinity, malfunctioning of
components within the radar set, or both.

The opinion of F2:
Many of the previous reports of radar interference tend to indicate local
interference (generated within the aircraft). This looks more like external
interference from sources outside the aircraft than previous reports, though
it is far from conclusive. These reports are always of interest.4

Our interests here are two-fold: first, this exercise was well documented and
unsolved by military authorities. It described some sort of object of great speed
and maneuverability, as well as a conscious intent to turn and pace the patrol
plane; second, the Navy’s handling of the report indicates an interest in
analyzing UFO reports outside the Air Force system. This may be due to the Air
Force’s confusing messages to the intelligence community generally, or it may
even be that they (USN) lacked confidence in the Air Force’s approach to the
subject. There is further support for this latter view in the documents, and we
will return to this Air Force/Navy awkwardness towards the subject as this study
proceeds.
One day later, two Air Force pilots were flying from Pope AFB, North
Carolina to Bolling AFB, D.C.5 The object that they sighted was just above their
altitude (and the cloud layer, as were they) and seemed to be moving back and
forth between two slightly higher cloudbanks. It looked like a hemisphere,
rounded on top, but could have been a spheroid, as black smoke seemed to
obscure the bottom. Some dark projection seemed to hang below the unknown.
The object would move linearly, horizontally, between cloudbanks, then stop and
reverse with no tilting or other motion. The pilots pursued in their Beech C-45
but could not close on the object as it moved at a constant pace ahead of them.
Then it increased speed and left them behind. A minute and a half later it
returned and took up station directly in front of them (distance estimate
unstated), and then accelerated and disappeared directly away. Agents from the
Air Force Office of Special Investigations debriefed the pilots and their
passenger, who was also a witness. One of the questions the airmen were asked
was whether they had read Keyhoe’s article. They said that they had not. One
wonders whether the Air Force really believed that their experienced pilots (both
were Captains) could be so influenced by reading a flying saucer article—that
their ability to observe and evaluate was so hindered—that they could report
something as unexplainable as this. This conjecture is possibly accurate, as an
article by Dr. Paul Fitts of AMC’s Aero-Medical Laboratory in Air Force
Magazine of February 1950 attempted to debunk UFO reports on a variety of
psychosocial and physiological grounds (just as had been done in the Project
Grudge final report).6
The Air Force was in full rejection mode at this time. The Pentagon had
created a directive, dated 8 February 1950, labeled AFCSI letter #85. Following
closely on the heels of its announcement that Project Grudge was discontinued,
this directive stated:

Spot Intelligence Reports concerning sightings of unidentified aerial
objects need not be forwarded by TWX unless considered to be of priority
Counterintelligence interest to this (Air Force OSI, The Inspector General)
headquarters.7

What this meant was that if a base command had fielded a UFO report it was no
longer required that a report be sent on to either the Pentagon or AMC. It was
that command’s judgment call as to whether it was important enough. In reality,
what this meant to savvy officers was that the subject was being downplayed,
and often, as mentioned by future Air Force project officer Edward Ruppelt, no
investigation or paperwork need be done at all. Not everyone agreed with this
seemingly unconcerned attitude. phenomenon) Brooks AFB, Texas and the
Atomic Energy Commission (concerned about the wrote the Pentagon
expressing their disapproval of eliminating the Air Force green project.
fireball o
In February, the UFO phenomenon began in earnest, but south of the U.S.
border in Mexico. Both citizens and the military were slow to take notice. But
they did notice something else which was to become the real spark of a publicity
wildfire in the following months. This is a story-within-our-story worth telling in
some detail.
Robert McLaughlin was an engineering graduate of the Naval Academy and
an expert on anti-aircraft gunnery. He migrated into guided missiles work and
worked on a primitive beginning of what we would call an “intelligent” missile,
able to alter flight on its own to destroy evasive targets. McLaughlin was active
in the Pacific Theatre during the war, and in 1946 was assigned to White Sands
Proving Grounds in charge of naval research units at the base.9
As we have seen, there was a great deal of UFO activity in the vicinity of
White Sands, and Commander McLaughlin heard about it. He was one of the
first to hear from Charles Moore’s group about the theodolite observation of an
object during their balloon launch of April 24, 1949. In early May 1949,
McLaughlin himself saw a UFO during a WAC-B rocket launch at the Proving
Grounds. These were not the only incidents he had heard about and on May 12,
1949, he wrote his friend, the legendary atmospheric physicist Dr. James Van
Allen, about the phenomenon.10
McLaughlin was more than intrigued; all this excited him. His collection of
reports indicated to him that these objects could accelerate. This meant they
were powered, and, therefore, were technology, and that the acceleration and
maneuvering characteristics precluded them being manned. He had already
talked to Clyde Tombaugh prior to writing Van Allen. Both McLaughlin and
Tombaugh thought that the technology perhaps came from Mars. (Tombaugh had
seen an unusual, anomalous “flash” light up an area of the Martian surface in his
telescope in 1941 and other rare flashes had been seen by Tsuneo Saheki of
Japan; plus Mars was in one of its closer positions to Earth when the U.S. set off
its first atomic bomb. Both McLaughlin and Tombaugh wondered whether a
Martian race had been alerted by that event to come take a closer look).
McLaughlin admitted to Van Allen that all of this gave him a bit of a crazy
feeling, but the observational facts were at least facts.
On June 14, 1949, another “unidentified” was observed by base personnel,
and this series of events, plus the fact that the Charles Moore ground observation
had received national press, caused the Public Information Office of the
Pentagon to send an officer personally to interview McLaughlin and the other
USN research project personnel.11 When the PIO officer ultimately met with
McLaughlin in the Commander’s office, McLaughlin began freely unloading all
the details of the incidents as he knew them. The third party in the room, a
veteran U.S. Army intelligence officer, sternly reminded McLaughlin that he
should not be freely speaking of these classified matters, and that approval for
such talk must come from higher authority in the Pentagon. McLaughlin waved
the Army officer off, said that the information was commonly known, and went
on over the objections (the Army officer later complained loudly about these
indiscretions during an investigation by the Air Force’s Office of Special
Investigations later in the year).12 The Army’s intelligence officer’s warning is
not what one would expect considering the Air Force’s recent termination of
Projects SIGN and Grudge and the Pentagon directive that reduced priorities on
UFOs.
On August 23, 1949, McLaughlin heard of yet another incident. This occurred
just before the Navy invited a group of reporters to watch a Viking rocket
launch, be escorted around the base facilities, and talk to U.S. Navy personnel.
During this visit, McLaughlin talked to the reporters. One writer, Marvin Miles
of the Los Angeles Times, returned to his office and penned “U.S. Officers
Report Seeing Flying Disks,” in the August 30, 1949, edition.13 He reported
speaking to witnesses of three different events, and specifically cited
McLaughlin. McLaughlin said that in Moore’s case the device was moving at
greater than 10,000 miles per hour. The reasoning behind McLaughlin’s estimate
cannot be established. There were no background objects or any mechanisms
whereby the real distance or size of the UFO could be estimated. It is not known
how McLaughlin arrived at his estimate, but it is almost certainly an error, which
appeared both in the Los Angeles Times and in the follow-up True magazine
article.
When the story broke, the public badgered the Army Commander of White
Sands, Brigadier General Philip Blackmore, to comment. He said: “So far as I
know these reports are simply untrue.”14 General Blackmore was doing his duty.
He had already been told of the Charles Moore sighting earlier.15 But, not
believing that an officer would stand in front of the American press and tell a flat
lie, the press and public seemed generally to accept the comment without
rebuttal.
But the Pentagon was not happy with such publicity breaks and sent OSI
investigators to White Sands to see how this could have happened.16 The
aforementioned Army officer, Captain Edward Detchmendy, was happy to finger
McLaughlin as a main source of the problem, but also indicated that the Navy
personnel generally were quite casual regarding talking about unidentified flying
object cases (even to non-military persons) and considered such incidents
common enough so as not to be unusual.
We do not know what inter-service communication occurred once the OSI
report got back to the Pentagon. We do know that it in no way discouraged
McLaughlin. Either in late 1949 or early 1950, he contacted True magazine
about writing an article on these Navy mysteries (which he regarded as simple,
astonishing truths) and his own speculations about them.17 The Navy itself
could not have been too concerned about Air Force feelings, and they approved
the release of his story to True. By approximately mid-February the contents of
McLaughlin’s True article (scheduled for a March 1950 publication) had been
leaked to the press, and national papers like the Christian Science Monitor were
carrying the United Press story in detail.18 Around that time the Navy got
enough pressure from somewhere and removed McLaughlin from White Sands,
sending him literally to sea aboard a destroyer.
We previously mentioned the Air Force’s project officer for UFO
investigations at AMC in 1951 - 53, Captain Edward Ruppelt. When he became
project chief in late 1951, Ruppelt went about attempting not only to understand
the subject matter and the Air Force organizational approach to it, but the history
of Air Force attitudes as well. He discovered that McLaughlin’s True article had
caused considerable trouble. According to Ed Ruppelt:19

After a quiet January, True again clobbered the reading public. This time it
was a story in the March 1950 issue and it was entitled, "How Scientists
Tracked Flying Saucers." It was written by none other than the man who
was at that time in charge of a team of Navy scientists at the super hush-
hush guided missile test and development area, White Sands Proving
Ground, New Mexico. He was Commander R. B. McLaughlin, an
Annapolis graduate and a Regular Navy officer. His story had been
cleared by the military and was in absolute, 180-degree, direct
contradiction to every press release that had been made by the military in
the past two years. Not only did the commander believe that he had proved
that UFO's were real but that he knew what they were. "I am convinced,"
he wrote in the True article, "that it," referring to a UFO he had seen at
White Sands, "was a flying saucer, and further, that these disks are
spaceships from another planet, operated by animate, intelligent beings."

On several occasions during 1948 and 1949, McLaughlin or his crew at
the White Sands Proving Ground had made good UFO sightings. The best
one was made on April 24, 1949, when the commander's crew of
engineers, scientists, and technicians were getting ready to launch one of
the huge 100-foot-diameter skyhook balloons. It was 10:30 A.M. on an
absolutely clear Sunday morning. Prior to the launching, the crew had
sent up a small weather balloon to check the winds at lower levels. One
man was watching the balloon through a theodolite, an instrument similar
to a surveyor's transit built around a 25-power telescope, one man was
holding a stop watch, and a third had a clipboard to record the measured
data. The crew had tracked the balloon to about 10,000 feet when one of
them suddenly shouted and pointed off to the left. The whole crew looked
at the part of the sky where the man was excitedly pointing, and there was
a UFO. "It didn't appear to be large," one of the scientists later said, "but
it was plainly visible. It was easy to see that it was elliptical in shape and
had a 'whitish-silver color.'" After taking a split second to realize what they
were looking at, one of the men swung the theodolite around to pick up the
object, and the timer reset his stop watch. For sixty seconds they tracked
the UFO as it moved toward the east. In about fifty-five seconds it had
dropped from an angle of elevation of 45 degrees to 25 degrees, then it
zoomed upward and in a few seconds it was out of sight. The crew heard
no sound and the New Mexico desert was so calm that day that they could
have heard "a whisper a mile away."

This wasn't the only UFO sighting made by White Sands scientists. On
April 5, 1948, another team watched a UFO for several minutes as it
streaked across the afternoon sky in a series of violent maneuvers. The
disk-shaped object was about a fifth the size of a full moon.

On another occasion the crew of a C-47 that was tracking a skyhook
balloon saw two similar UFO's come loping in from just above the
horizon, circle the balloon, which was flying at just under 90,000 feet, and
rapidly leave. When the balloon was recovered it was ripped.

I knew the two pilots of the C-47; both of them now believe in flying
saucers. And they aren't alone; so do the people of the Aeronautical
Division of General Mills who launch and track the big skyhook balloons.
These scientists and engineers all have seen UFO's and they aren't their
 own balloons. I was almost tossed out of the General Mills offices into a
cold January Minneapolis snowstorm for suggesting such a thing-but that
comes later in our history of the UFO . .. When the March issue of True
magazine carrying Commander McLaughlin's story about how the White
Sands scientists had tracked UFO's reached the public, it stirred up a
hornets' nest. Donald Keyhoe's article in the January True had converted
many people but there were still a few heathens. The fact that government
scientists had seen UFO's, and were admitting it, took care of a large
percentage of these heathens. More and more people were believing in
flying saucers.

The Navy had no comment to make about the sightings, but they did
comment on McLaughlin. It seems that several months before, at the
suggestion of a group of scientists at White Sands, McLaughlin had
carefully written up the details of the sightings and forwarded them to
Washington. The report contained no personal opinions, just facts. The
comments on McLaughlin's report had been wired back to White Sands
from Washington and they were, "What are you drinking out there?" A very
intelligent answer—and it came from an admiral in the Navy's guided
missile program.

By the time his story was published, McLaughlin was no longer at White
Sands; he was at sea on the destroyer Bristol. Maybe he answered the
admiral's wire.

Dr. Moore buttressed Commander McLaughlin’s claims by speaking freely to
the press about his own case.20 Those stories appeared on March 8. The Air
Force did not have many options in the face of the Navy’s balloon and missile
scientists. They chose to duck and cover, and silently let it blow over.
Due to this rise in public interest and the beginnings of the impact of the hoax
about a crashed saucer in 1948 New Mexico (this incident became the basis for a
popular book, Behind the Flying Saucers by Frank Scully),21 the FBI in the
person of J. Edgar Hoover wanted some answers from the Air Force.22 FBI
liaison, agent S. W. Reynolds, went to the Analysis division and, as usual, was
directed to Major Jere Boggs.23 Boggs’ superior, Lt. Colonel J. V. Hearn, also
attended. The two Air Force officers told Reynolds not to worry. The Air Force
was so unconcerned that it had discontinued Project Grudge and did not consider
this to be a subject of any interest whatsoever; the incident would simply be
handled at the local base level. All the current excitement was due merely to
magazine articles. Boggs and Hearn also reminded Reynolds that the FBI had
asked out of the UFO investigation business ‘way back in October of 1947. The
latter, rather blunt, remark was typical of the Air Force’s crude handling of its
relations with other important intelligence groups and organizations.
The Air Force’s attempts to control publicity and emotions about this subject
were about to unravel even further. The duck-and-cover behavior might have
worked if the UFO phenomenon would have just quit manifesting, but it did not.
In March there were events at Selfridge AFB (03-03-1950); Dayton, Ohio (03-
08-1950); the Pcnnsy 1 vania/Wcst Virginia border (3-15-1950); Dallas, Texas
(03-16 1950); El Moro Bay, California, and Pensacola, Florida (both 03-23-1950
and both military); near Washington, DC (03-26-1950); and Okinawa (03-27-
1950).24 There was even another sighting in the Sandia and Los Alamos area on
the 21st of March, just to keep the top secret bomb bases on alert.25 All of these
events in one form or another were known to the Air Force or other intelligence
operatives, and often known to the public as well through news stories. To pick
one prominent example of the sort of things that were happening, we will pause
for a moment on March 20, 1950.26
It was about 9:30 p.m. when Chicago and Southern Airlines Flight 53 passed
over Hazen, Arkansas on its way from Memphis to Little Rock. Captain Jack
Adams was the pilot; G.W. Anderson was First Officer. They were low (2000
feet) and in the middle of a dark, clear night. Ahead of them to the south, and
moving in their direction, was something that bore “a bright white [light]
flashing intermittently from the top of the thing. . . it was the strongest blue-
white light we’d ever seen.”27 This light flashed every three seconds as it came
forward. Adams and Anderson flashed the plane’s own landing lights as a signal
to whatever it was, but got no response. The object kept coming, at an estimated
1000 feet higher than their plane and at perhaps 600 mph or more. As the
unknown flew in its straight-line course, it passed more or less over their plane,
obscuring the top flashing light, but revealing a circular display of eight to ten
large “spots” or ports of soft purplish fluorescent light. The pilots thought that
these spots looked like windows. The sky was too dark to see the body of the
object accurately, but the circular pattern of the “ports,” and the eclipsing of the
top beacon as it passed over, convinced Adams and Anderson that they were
looking at a solid, round aerial device having no obvious method of propulsion
(i.e. like jet exhausts).
What did they think they’d seen? Both Adams and Anderson admitted that
they had been flying saucer skeptics—but were so no longer. Then what was it?
Both of them believed that they had encountered a secret device from the
military. Adams had his doubts, though. Five years after the hullabaloo died
down, he was asked what he thought then. The interviewer caught Adams on the
airport tarmac standing next to his own plane.

I'm sure it was some type of aircraft and it was under control. I do not
know what it was. It wasn't anything like this (pointing to his plane).
People talk about our not being able to fly to the Moon, but we're going to
get there someday. And if we can get that far, who knows but what
somebody from somewhere else hasn't already figured out how to make
such long trips?28

Adams was voicing what a lot of people were thinking, something too
exciting to be in line with the Air Force’s concerns over an overly excitable
public. One factor, however, worked in the Air Force’s favor. The publicity was
intense and tiresome. The pilots were on radio and television nationally, and
hounded by the press. Adams said that if he saw another unknown object in the
sky, he would not tell anyone about it. Many persons, especially airline pilots,
came to see that non-reporting was an easier path to take. And, whether or not it
was a good thing for Air Force policy, Adams’ and Anderson’s published guess
that it was a secret U.S. military device gained momentum. In the midst of all the
Hazen, Arkansas, hoopla, the Air Force, while telling J. Edgar Hoover and
everyone else that UFOs were nothing to be at all concerned about, approved a
$20,000 project to use Askania tracking telescopes in the New Mexico desert to
get photographic data, if possible, on the phenomenon.29
Regarding public discussion of this “non-problem”: back on March 15, an Air
Force Captain, flying in Guatemala, heard from other pilots at La Aurora field
that saucers—large, extremely fast, and highly maneuverable—had flown
directly over the runway. Hall (the captain’s name) was obviously out-of touch
with Air Force views, and spoke freely to the press about this (the stories had
already been written at length in the Guatemala City newspaper, which even
included a photo). Hall returned to the States at the end of March to an air station
in Mobile, Alabama. The officers decided to have a seminar on the flying saucer
topic and asked Hall to lead it off. However, an intelligence officer heard of this
and called Hall in. He was interrogated about the La Aurora incident and noted
that others had already confirmed his information from that area. Then, the
Major doing the interview ended the meeting with these words: “Listen, there is
no such thing as a flying saucer. You won’t discuss them.”30 The Air Force was
still trying to settle upon a coherent and effective position to take, at least
publicly, towards the UFO incidents. Drew Pearson was a very well-known and
influential news columnist at the time. Often he received personal interviewing
opportunities from governmental and military figures that other newsmen did not
receive. Pearson was a useful media contact since—at least on the topic of flying
saucers—he was willing to go along with the position and tone of the person
whom he had just interviewed. On March 31 he published a nationally
distributed column entitled: “Worried about Flying Saucers?”31 In it Pearson
reported that all this was a great burden to the Air Force which was being
uselessly harassed by having to reply to all this groundless public excitement. He
had been assured that as regards flying saucers, “there ain’t no such animal” (a
quote from his authority contact). This down-home phrasing of the Air Force
position struck a chord among several news writers, who repeated it, sometimes
believingly, sometimes not. And, it had the value of being a clear, flat,
unmistakable denial of UFO reality, which was the position-of-choice at the
moment for the Pentagon. Then along came Henry Taylor.
Henry Taylor was just as well known at the time for his nationally broadcast
radio show as Pearson was for his column writing. Speaking as if he had
received insider information, Taylor stated on his April 3 broadcast that the
flying saucers were not only real, but when the military decides that the time is
right to release the whole story, it will be the best of news. Taylor stated that the
flying saucers were one of our own top-secret new weapons. Getting many
details wrong, he went on to speak of several UFO incidents with the tone that
they were undeniably real events showing technological advancements far
beyond known aircraft.

 The flying saucers are a part of a big and expanding experimental project
which has been progressing in the United States for nearly three years. I
know what these so-called 'flying saucers' are used for. But they are an
important military secret.32

Taylor left no impression whatsoever that he didn’t know what he was talking
about. The Air Force’s digestive tract curdled further when, almost
simultaneously, U.S. News and World Report dedicated three pages in the
magazine to say the same thing as had Taylor.33 In the article, it was “revealed”
that the disks were, in all probability, a Navy project. Several pictures of disk-
like model technologies and one of the infamous technical failures, the Navy’s
“flying flapjack,” were appended to make the point that all of this was ours.
This double-punch to the standard line was sensational, and everyone was
badgered into commenting upon it. These comments began right at the top.
President Truman and his staff knew that he was going to be asked about this.
We, of course, do not know how the internal conversations went, but we do
know what the President’s press secretary said the next day, April 4.34 Charles
Ross stated that Truman had conferred with his two top military advisors, Rear
Admiral Robert Dennison and Brigadier General Robert Landry, and that their
information continued to indicate that the United States military had no such
projects. Furthermore, the Air Force study of the alleged phenomenon concluded
that there were no such things as flying saucers.
Right after this press conference came a statement from highly regarded
scientist and chairman of the Air Force’s Guided Missile Committee, Clark
Millikan of California Tech: “If anyone should know about such a project, I
should know—and I know of no such development in the aircraft or guided
missile field.”35
Back in Washington, then Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson trotted out both
the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to deny that the
Navy was engaged in any such project. Johnson mocked the concept and said
that it was the Air Force who really could use that sort of help.36
On April 5 the topic was the subject of an exchange on the floor of
congress.37 The Chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee for
military expenditures stated that flying saucers did not exist and the United
States certainly did not fund research on them. But another member of the same
committee soured the impact of this by replying that he had seen such an object
himself. Because of this personal experience, Congressman Engel of Michigan
said that the theory being recently publicized (that the saucers were ours) was
probably true. He did not think that the Soviets were in any way capable of this.
On April 6 the matter of the saucers arose on the floor of the Senate. Senate
Armed Services Committee member Richard Russell of Georgia said:

I am completely baffled by Flying Saucer stories. It seems inconceivable
that so many pilots would have hallucinations or be fooled by cloud or
atmospheric formations.

From their testimony, it seems they do exist. But our Air Force says they
do not. I just can't understand it. No, I don't think it is in the stage for a
Senatorial investigation as yet.38

That last remark certainly shook the Air Force. A Senate investigation was the
absolute last thing that they wanted. GOP floor leader Kenneth Wherry of
Nebraska said that the statements about flying saucers are “like our foreign
policy. It is in a state of confusion and no one seems to know what it is all
about.”39 While this intuitive remark was probably exactly correct, it did not
describe a state-of-mind that the Air Force wanted Senators or anyone else to
ponder and comment upon. The powerful Armed Services Committee Chairman,
Millard Tydings of Delaware, said that they had not discussed the flying disks
with military officials or anyone else, and had assumed that all this was “our
own experiments in embryo stage.”40
One baffled Senator wondering about investigations, one sarcastic Senator
commenting on non- understandable confusion, and one Senator thinking that
they are our devices: none of these was the mindset desired by the Air Force.
Nevertheless, the Air Force persevered. A Pentagon Public Relations Officer,
Major DeWitt Searles, now met with the press to assure them that there was
nothing to the saucer claims at all, and that the final report of the now defunct
saucer study (i.e. Project Grudge) was “The Death of Saucers.” He repeated the
Grudge conclusion that all cases were the result of misinterpretations, mass
hysteria, and hoaxes. Calling himself the office in charge of “clay pigeons,” he
read to the reporters what he said was his standard spiel on the telephone:

No, no, a thousand times no. As far as the Air Force goes, there's no such
thing as a flying saucer. Further, there are no such things as flying
chromium hub caps, flying dimes, flying teardrops, flying gas lights, flying
ice cream cones or flying pie plates. Thank you and good-by.41

He left the reporters with a comedic picture of himself at his desk and phone:
hands raised, pleading for relief from the nonsense.
We have to admire the Air Force at this stage for putting forward such strong
action. Major Searles’ performance for the press left very little room for
interpretation. As a result, the Air Force had crudely insulted numerous people
from scientists to commercial pilots to their own officers, but they must have felt
that it was worth it. Perhaps they were correct, as, in the end, they were
successful in getting the majority of the citizenry and politicians not only to
disbelieve in the reality of the flying disks, but to view UFOs generally as a joke.
They paid for this approach by causing anger in many of the observers and a
growing distrust of military authorities by the citizenry, who felt that this was a
clear case of their being lied to. A good example is Edward Ruppelt’s comments
about the difficulties he had in getting both pilots and the General Mills balloon
experts even to talk to him.42 This distrust not only encouraged the formation of
civilian investigating groups, which began popping up in 1951, but may have
had the more subtle, but much more important, impact of evolving a general
distrust of government handling of information and the “truth.”
In the media, legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow produced the first
extended television commentary on the subject.43 It aired at the end of the first
week in April and was called “The Case of the Flying Saucer.” The program was
surprisingly well balanced. Murrow began with Kenneth Arnold, spoke of early
cases such as Muroc AFB and the Mantell accident, and had a Major General
who gave an extremely negative trashing of the subject, using Grudge-like
words. However, Murrow came back with quotes supporting UFOs from True
magazine, countered by the entry of the “great debunker,” Donald Menzel,
astronomer of Harvard, into the field. A lengthy description of a close encounter
by a doctor was balanced by a Lockheed executive saying he did not believe
UFOs Edward R. Murrow existed. Henry Taylor’s views that the phenomenon
was a Navy project was aired, and then that theory was debunked by the
designer of the “Flying Flapjack,” engineer Charles Zimmerman. Truman’s press
secretary came on to reiterate that the President believed that there was no
substance to the concept of the disks. Finally, Murrow took to the street and got
every conceivable opinion one could imagine, before signing off saying that he
could find no pattern in this, and so was skeptical. It was an honest taking of the
American pulse on the enigma. A couple of days later, almost as if the Universe
were delighting in mischief, the Japanese astronomer, Saheki, saw another
intense flash of light on the surface of Mars.44
This policy of strong public debunking worked well as a tool for keeping the
general public in line, but it did not work well with the UFO observers. When
the Air Force characterized all UFO sightings as misinterpretations of common
things (planes, stars, balloons, et al.), or hysterical emotionalism, or deliberate
lying, it was the same as characterizing the witnesses as liars, hysterics, or, at the
best, incompetents. Worse, it projected an attitude of utter disregard to observers
inside the services, whose reports the intelligence officers still wanted to see.
Added to the problems caused by the policy was the fact that it was essentially a
lie, and responsible people saw through the lie and questioned the Air Force
approach and message in its entirety.
Moderate analysis of most historical complexities would caution any scholar
from labeling such matters so strongly as “the Air Force lied.” But there is no
room to allow a more polite evaluation. We have seen that the Air Force’s
analysts certainly knew that almost none of the unidentified cases reaching them
were due to either hysteria or hoaxes. The third explanation (misinterpretations)
was the only one with any potential for intellectual honesty, if one stretched it to
its limits. Even there, we have seen that none of the many “Estimates” of what
this phenomenon was could be utilized to support the categoric statement that
misinterpretation of planes, stars, bolides, balloons, birds, auroras, etc. could
explain the multitude of strong cases.
Living with a Lie, especially a blunt one, would be easier if the stimulus that
called up the Lie would simply go away. It did not. There were more incidents at
Los Alamos (April 19), White Sands (April 25 and May 29), thirty-five civilian
airline pilot encounters between April and the end of June,45 and enough
sightings in Texas for Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington to feel
compelled to state that there was “nothing to it at all.”46 On May 19,
professional astronomer Dr. Seymour Hess reported a UFO at Flagstaff,
Arizona.47 Eddie Rickenbacker, legendary flying ace Eddie Rickenbacker and
chief executive of Eastern Airlines, had naturally been hearing of many pilot
encounters. He told the press:

There must be something to them (UFO's) for too many reliable persons
have made reports on them. I am duty bound not to say what I know about
them—or what I don't know about them. However, if they do exist, you can
rest assured that they are ours.48

Those in the Pentagon wished that people like Rickenbacker would just shut
up. Referring specifically to his quote, a Pentagon document said that such
things only serve to “maintain the chain reaction of such reports.”49
Living with a Lie is also easier if you don’t really have to care much about the
people to whom you are lying. While that may have been the case as far as
civilians were concerned, many authorities in the Air Force did not believe that it
was acceptable to discourage or confuse their own people about reporting
unidentified airspace violations. As we have mentioned, Air Force letter AFSCI
#85 had done just that. Combined with the blunt language of the announcement
of the elimination of Project Grudge, and the even blunter condemnations of
flying saucers by Air Force authority figures, base commands were confused if
not thoroughly antipathetic about investigating and transmitting reports. While
the Korean War did much to push UFOs out of the American press beginning in
June of 1950, it also made unidentified airspace violations over Korea a major
issue. This concern went right to the top of Air Force Intelligence. On June 1
Commanding General Earle E. Partridge of the 5th Air Force, responsible for the
Korean Theatre, wrote to Commanding General George Stratemeyer, of the Far
Eastern Air Force, asking for analysis of a number of such cases.50 From this
high place, Chief of Intelligence General Charles Cabell once again assessed his
organization’s stand on handling the UFO problem, and, once again, decided that
they had not gotten it right. And so, during June and July of 1950, Cabell and his
aides began to repair their mistakes, and to communicate better to the rest of the
military and intelligence community what they wanted done.51
 Cabell et al. came to the realization that they had several things to undo:
1. It had been a mistake to cancel the UFO Analysis Project, and to
announce to the services and
agencies that they had done so;
2. It had been a mistake to give the personnel at AMC (including the new
intelligence chief, Colonel Harold Watson) the impression that UFOs were
considered so unimportant that they could ignore them entirely, with or
without a formal project;
3. It had been a mistake to adopt such a crude and uncivilized tone in their
public statements about the phenomenon, a tone to which Watson himself
was particularly prone.
The focal point for the worst of these three mistakes was Air Materiel Command
at Wright-Patterson AFB with its defunct UFO project and its irascible chief
intelligence officer. So, Cabell addressed himself directly to Watson as regards
policy.
In July of 1950 Cabell, via his aide Colonel Barber, sent a notice to Watson
telling him that the UFO project at AMC was to re-open, and to do so with a
serious intelligence analysis basis.52 Cabell reminded Watson that despite the
official closing of Project Grudge, the Air Force had never wavered in its desire
to receive UFO reports and to take them seriously. He noted that Watson, and
everyone else, possessed a letter dated January 12, 1950, titled “Reporting of
Information on Unconventional Aircraft,” to this effect. (See the appendix for a
copy.) Now, in this July letter, Watson was told how it would be. Here are the
key paragraphs:

c. Gen Cabell's views are that we should reinstitute, if it has been
abandoned, a continuing analysis of reports received and he expects AMC
to do this as part of their obligation to produce air technical intelligence.
He specifically desires that the project, as it existed before, be not fully re-
implemented with special technical teams traveling around the country
interviewing observers, etc., and he is particularly desirous that there be
no fanfare or publicity over the fact that the USAF is still interested in
"flying saucers."

 d. Gen Cabell desires that we place ourselves in a position that, if
circumstances require an all-out effort in this regard at some future time,
we will be able to announce that we have continued quietly our analysis of
reports without interruption.

e. Under this philosophy then, we will continue to receive from USAF
sources reports of "flying saucers" and we will immediately transmit these
reports to AMC. You will be at liberty to query, through AFOIC-CC
normal channels, the USAF reporting source for more information. We will
also be scanning State, CIA, Army, and Navy incoming reports for
pertinent information which will be relayed to AMC. You may also address
queries regarding specific reports of this nature to AFOIC-CC in the
normal manner.

f. Ordinary newspaper reports should be analyzed without initiating
specific inquiry. Information received direct from non-USAF individuals
may be acknowledged and interrogated through correspondence. Where
geographically convenient, specific sightings may be investigated quietly,
at your discretion, by AMC depot personnel, and requests for investigation
may be filed with your local CSI office.

g. Queries from news agencies as to whether USAF is still interested in
"flying saucers" may be given a general answer to the effect that AMC is
interested in any information that will enable it to produce air technical
intelligence—and just as much interested in "flying saucer" information as
it would be in any other significant information. Work in the "flying
saucer" field is not receiving "special" emphasis because emphasis is
being placed upon all technical intelligence fields.
The memo tells Watson how the USAF will handle military encounters—as
serious, normal intelligence functions, particularly at AMC as a focal point. And
it tells how the USAF will handle civilian encounters—an unemotional
statement of general interest and quiet, unpublicized targeted investigations. A
last comment indicated that the Pentagon was a bit miffed at Watson, saying
essentially “if you don’t understand any of this, call us and we’ll explain it to
you again.”
 Watson tucked his tail and got into line, although at AMC itself the two
officers in charge of the re-instituted Project Grudge knew that the boss was
derogatory on UFOs and were doing little or nothing at the job.53 Still, Watson
worried about striking the proper public pose—if this was the new UFO attitude
in the Pentagon (formalized by a new letter, September 8, 1950,54 with the same
title as the aforementioned January memo), then what was he supposed to say,
precisely, when the press came calling for information on an incident?55
The Pentagon came right back to Watson with a policy. (A copy is available in
the appendix.) Cabell aide, Brigadier General Ernest Moore, wrote:56

2. In a recent telephone conversation between Colonel Watson, Hq AMC
and Colonel Harris, this headquarters, Colonel Watson requested
guidance in the matter of releasing results of investigation, analysis, and
evaluation of incidents brought to his attention. This headquarters believes
that release of details of analysis and evaluation of incidents is
inadvisable, and desires that, in lieu thereof, releases conform to the policy
and spirit of the following:
"We have investigated and evaluated_____________ incident and
have found nothing of value and nothing which would change our
previous estimates on this subject."

3. Results of analysis and evaluation of incidents possessing any
intelligence value will be forwarded to this headquarters for information
and for any action relative to possible press releases.

The policy is significant. It says that the only statement that the public will get
(regardless of the actual nature of the incident) is one of robotic, non-
embellished negative conclusions.
Cabell wanted quiet—quiet analysis of military and civilian reports (with the
military well-informed that the Air Force and AMC were interested, while the
public only vaguely so). He wanted quiet fieldwork—invisible if possible—on
civilian cases. And he wanted an emotionless and non-insulting denial that
anything of military or technical interest had been found in any new
investigation, should the public make inquiries about such. Beyond that, Cabell
wanted AMC to be serious about its job, which he suspected, and Edward
Ruppelt later confirmed,57 was no longer true.
Unfortunately for Cabell, “quiet” was not on the agenda. The latter part of
1950 saw the publication of the first two full-length books about the subject.
One, Behind the Flying Saucers by Frank Scully, appeared in September, and
sensationally claimed truth for a government-collected crashed saucer with
several dead pilots.58 Another, Flying Saucers Are Real by Donald Keyhoe,59
appeared in October and had far greater and lasting impact, bringing many
interested civilians and military people to believe in UFO reality, government
withholding of information, and the extraterrestrial hypothesis.60 But an even
better indicator of the size of the Air Force’s information-and-attitude
manipulation problem occurred when the popular grammar school publication
My Weekly Reader offered an article claiming that flying saucers were real and
that they were Air Force devices. When the editors were queried as to why they
had written such a story, they said that they had been “deluged” by letters from
school children excited by thought of saucers landing and mini-pilots from other
worlds being inside. This indicated a “widespread hysteria” building among
children of this age, and the editors thought it their educational duty to nip those
ideas.61 Whether the Air Force thought that this was a wise fabrication by the
editors, we do not know. Certainly it was not their public position. There are two
other powerful instances of public relations problems. First: the publication of
the Scully book was condemned as contributing to mass hysteria in the public
during these times of war. This charge came from a Congressman, Edward
Jenison of Illinois.62 The Air Force’s Public Information Officer, Clare Welch,
guessed that 3 to 4 million people had gotten “into contact” with the idea of
flying saucers due to the book 63 and the FBI wondered ominously if Scully had
a political purpose of undermining public morale with it.64 Second: Air Force
documents revealed a strong negative attitude toward a more obviously fictional
project, a Hollywood motion picture film. Well-known movie director Howard
Hawks arranged for the making of The Thing, a UFO horror story about a
crashed saucer discovered in the Arctic, and petitioned the Air Force for help in
using military locations, personnel, and equipment during the shooting. The Air
Force reply, from Pentagon Intelligence to the local base commander, is what we
would expect now that we have delved into this policy morass:

Reference is made to proposed Winchester Pictures Corporation proposed
motion picture to be entitled 'The Thing.' It is understood you have been
approached to extend cooperation to the producer and writers as pertains
to filming location and to endorsement of the film. The Air Force has
maintained for a considerable period of time that the 'flying saucer' is a
myth and it is our policy not to participate in any proposal that will
perpetuate this hoax. Therefore, the Air Force has refused cooperation on
this production. Further, the Air Force is objecting to any mentioning or
pictorial display of Air Force personnel or equipment in the film. In view
of the above, it is requested that you consider disapproving their request to
you for cooperation.65

No encouragement to the public. Period.
During the final third of the year, public cases of astonishing character were
much less frequent than were such cases inside the military and intelligence
community. These reports were, as we have seen, particularly bothersome, since
the credentials of the witnesses and, often, the strangeness of the details
reported, placed the cases well outside the misinterpretation /hysteria/ hoax
mantra of blanket dismissal. A few examples are appropriate:
As was mentioned earlier in this book, during World War II there were two
major scientific and engineering efforts taking place in the United States: The
Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the Radiation Lab to improve
the function of radar technology. Both efforts continued in their different ways
during the Cold War. The Manhattan Project goals were continued at Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, and Hanford, Washington, as well as at several locations (especially
Los Alamos and Sandia Labs) in New Mexico. UFO incidents occurred at all
these locations. The Radiation Lab had been focused at MIT and Harvard in the
Cambridge/Boston, Massachusetts area. The main concern was that the
continental U.S. had a very poor radar detection system, both in terms of
coverage and ability to analyze the targets detected. Fear of Soviet air incursions
by missiles or jets was the primary worry, but the mysterious flying disk
incidents were not helping anyone relax.66 It is interesting that on September 21,
an MIT research plane with radar technologists aboard had a UFO encounter.
The research group was flying in the vicinity of Provincetown, Massachusetts,
when they picked up an object on their equipment making very abrupt high-
speed turns and showing straight line-of-flight velocity of 1200 miles per hour.
The researchers were flabbergasted but felt that this incident needed to be
reported to higher authorities. They reasoned that this must be some U.S. secret
project, and therefore not to be discussed, but what if it was not? The team
leader’s own words convey the peculiar atmosphere of the event:

The whole thing doesn't seem to make sense as you will discover when you
reflect a moment about it. It was very evidently an interception of some
sort on our flight, but what? The turn was utterly fantastic, I don't think the
human frame could absorb it, but if the object was radio controlled, it had
no particular business flying on such courses as planes occupied on
legitimate business. A few rough calculations concerning control surfaces,
angles, etc., only adds to the puzzle that this object must have been entirely
unconventional in many and basic respects. Perhaps the thing that bothers
me the most is that it gave a very good radar echo, which implies irregular
surfaces and comparatively large size, large enough so the pilots might
have had a good chance to see it.

It seems highly probable that I may be poking into something that is none
of my business, but on the other hand, it may be something that the Air
Force would like to know about if it doesn't already. I wish you would take
the matter up with your intelligence officer or C.O. and get their reactions.
The whole thing has got us going nuts here and we don't know whether to
talk about it or keep our mouths shut. Until I hear from you, we will do the
latter.

Perhaps we could run another mission for the purpose of luring it out
again and this time track it, or at least get your pilots close enough for a
look—they'd never catch it I'm sure . . .67

Yes sir, exactly. “The whole thing doesn’t seem to make sense,” as long as we
are forced to think about it in conventional terms. We do not know how the
scientists’ questions were resolved by Air Force intelligence, or whether they
tried another mission to “lure it out.”
Meanwhile, the other half of the high-tech world of government technologists
was getting plenty of action, especially in New Mexico and at Oakridge.
In September, Project Twinkle, the project to attempt to explain the green
fireballs (especially in the vicinity of Los Alamos) had, as was inevitable,
become involved with typical UFO reports. The main event here was the
photographing of an object viewed by one of the missile-and-balloon-tracking
cameras, the cinetheodolites.68 These appearances of uninvited objects during
missile launches allegedly occurred several times (as, similarly, the General
Mills balloon launchers also testified for their flights).69 The images were
apparently like mere elliptical smudges on the film, but these, when joined to the
scientists’ testimonies, seemed to assure that something unexplained, and
probably unwelcome, had occurred. Holloman AFB housed the local interceptor
squadron and became involved, as it was their charge to defend that region’s
airspace. Project Twinkle personnel and Holloman officers conferred to discuss
what should be done.70 Holloman was happy to do its duty, but it wanted one
crucial piece of approval.
Would higher Air Force authorities allow Holloman pilots to fire live
ammunition at the bogies? This is, on minimal reflection, not the request of
people believing in hoaxes, hysteria, and misinterpretations. It is exactly the
inquiry of people worried about unknown technological violations of sensitive
airspace. The FBI was similarly serious about the New Mexico situation, having
been involved since the earlier meetings called by Colonel Rees and Lincoln
LaPaz. Doubtless partially informed about the latest developments with Project
Twinkle, the Bureau asked for an update on the findings.71
The Air Force once again brushed the concerns aside, and said that Wright-
Patterson analysts were on top of the situation and that no patterns of any kind
existed in the reports, let alone was there any reason to believe that there were
any objects from the Soviets or other planets responsible for those reports.72
However, in early October at the Los Alamos laboratory of Dr. William Carter,
radiation counters went on unexplained “excursions,” that is they detected
abnormally high radiation on four instances coincidental with UFO reports
gathered by the volunteer scientific watchdog group at the laboratory.73 We do
not know to whom the “Los Alamos Birdwatchers” reported these radiation
detections. It was not to AMC. Probably the incidents were reported to the Air
Force’s Cambridge Research Lab (as executive for Project Twinkle), and it was
only a year or two later that Captain Ruppelt received a general report at AMC’s
Project Blue Book which was to be the new name, in 1952, for Grudge.74
Ruppelt commented that the fact that Blue Book did not have any investigative
files for the UFO incidents which were concurrent with these radiation readings
did not surprise him, because the two “responsible” AMC officers at the time
(James Rodgers and Roy James) were so incredulous about UFOs, and so lax
about their duties, that they actually threw files away.75 This is mentioned to
convey, in another way, the mess that was made of all this, “officially.”
This leads us now to Oak Ridge. We have very poor documentation for what
happened around the nation’s nuclear laboratory for the first two thirds of 1950.
But something was happening. In July there had been enough sightings and
interest that a laboratory officer and a Vanderbilt University professor decided to
try to correlate radiation detector “excursions” (à la Mt. Palomar and Los
Alamos) with UFO incidents.76 It is believed that they did not find such a
correlation at the time. With the beginning of October much more documentation
becomes available to us, as U.S. Army and FBI records come together to paint a
picture of a month loaded with activity. The events which are known are mainly
of two types: cases of the Knoxville airport picking up radar bogies in the
laboratory area (Oct. 12, 16, 24 twice), and personnel associated with the lab
reporting visual sightings of unknowns (Oct. 13, 14, 20, 77 23, 24 twice).77
Whether any of these visual sightings strongly correlate with radar returns is not
known; the radar pick-ups were the occasion for several interceptor scrambles,
none of which saw anything. There were certainly more incidents than these. On
October 12 the Oak Ridge Atomic Energy Commission placed a request in the
newspaper for anyone seeing flying saucers over the lab to report to them.78
The FBI knew all about this flurry, too. By mid-October Bureau personnel
were on the hunt checking the backgrounds of all the UFO witnesses they could
find in the area, in search of information that might point to them being
communist sympathizers or otherwise a danger to the nation’s interest. Their
report found none of that. And, in fact, they found no explanations of any kind.

. . . The most reliable sources available were utilized in the compilation of
 this report. The employment records and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation reports concerning the witnesses were inspected to ascertain
their reliability, integrity, and loyalty to the United States Government.

The opinions of the officials of the Security Division, AED, Oak Ridge;
AEC Security Patrol, Oak Ridge; FBI, Knoxville; Air Force Radar and
Fighter Squadrons, Knoxville; and the OSI, Knoxville, Tennessee, fail to
evolve an adequate explanation . . . the possibilities of practical jokers,
mass hysteria, balloons of any description, flights of birds (with or without
cobwebs or other objects Attachéd), falling kites, objects thrown from the
ground, windblown objects, insanity, and many other natural happenings
have been rejected because of the detailed, similar descriptions of the
objects seen by different persons; and because of impossibility.79

One gets used to the awkward phraseology used by some of these intelligence
community writers. That last sentence bangs on the ear, and we honestly cannot
tell what the writer meant by it. The overall report attempts to say that, when one
accepts the descriptions given by the witnesses as generally accurate, none of the
mundane explanations cited are even possible explanations for what was seen.
This is the general truth of UFOlogy; if one accepts the witnesses’ testimonies as
being close to true reporting, then one must throw up their hands and admit that
they are dealing with a major mystery.
The Air Force, of course, was not going to admit anything like that, even to
the FBI. So, when the FBI sent one of its agents to inquire about these matters,
and the general state of incident investigations, to General Joseph Carroll (chief
of the AFOSI), the General downplayed any mystery involved. Carroll did say
one important thing: as part of General Cabell’s renovation of intelligence
community attitudes about the seriousness of reporting UFOs, Carroll told the
FBI that the Air Force had resuscitated Project Grudge at AMC and was once
more particularly focused on this issue.80 One wonders how this mixed message
of a “nothing-to-it” phenomenon with a revitalized intelligence project to study
it really played in the minds of the other agencies and areas of the military. The
quotes listed earlier were taken verbatim from an Army document given to the
FBI in response to their inquiry about what happened. That document also listed
the three hypotheses that were going through peoples’ minds:

The trend of opinion seems to follow three patterns of thought. The first is
that the objects are a physical phenomenon, which have a scientific
explanation; the second is that the objects are experimental objects from
an undetermined source guided by electronics; and the third is similar to
the second except that an intended demoralization or harassment is
involved. The fantastic is generally rejected.81

Again, the language is not optimized for our understanding, but to give another
opinion and to re phrase: the writer seems to be saying that the experts believe
that this concentration of cases is explicable by some natural phenomenon, but
not as yet recognized; some technological development, probably remotely
controlled (and by the United States); or some technological development,
employed by parties not having U.S. interests at heart (i.e. Soviets), and aiming
to harass and demoralize the nation (the psychological warfare theory). The final
statement about rejecting the “fantastic” almost certainly means extraterrestrials.
As such, this is the perfect political statement, beginning with the most
acceptable idea (an elaborate way of saying “nothing to it”) and progressing
through the next two vaguely acceptable concepts in order of their desirability.
In November, AMC project monitor James Rodgers was handed the Oak
Ridge UFO problem to analyze. He did so in a classic Grudge manner.82 The
letter, written for Colonel Harold Watson’s signature (actually signed by the
person who would replace him, Colonel Frank Dunn, a much more open-minded
officer) was polite but said curtly that all this sounded like errors in the radar
system’s detection of air inversions and the like. The visual cases were dismissed
as weather balloons, aircraft, or odd cloud formations. Shortly after receiving
Rodgers’ explanations, the lab had a UFO report and 83 had a coincident
radiation excursion on detectors in the laboratory.83
Army and AEC authorities obviously did not take Rodgers’ easy write-off as
some definitive statement. On the 1st and 2nd of December, military authorities
met in the Oak Ridge area to discuss the problem of the Knoxville radar signals
and oddly, even a Tennessee Senator attended.84 Their conclusion was to set up
additional radar to attempt multiple set detections should cases occur again. Oak
Ridge engineer Lt. Colonel John R. Hood, along with others at the lab, dispersed
radiation counters around the lab’s restricted area.85 Hood wanted to map the
presence of any unusual radiation, but also to set up a source of very radioactive
material to see if its presence had an effect on the air above it. If the air was
affected, perhaps by ionization, could that be the cause of the anomalous radar
returns over the lab? If such home-made aerial anomalies were not the cause of
the radar reports, perhaps the testing could give a hint about possible effects of a
flyover of a nuclear-powered aircraft. Hood also mentioned using a
magnetometer array. It was good “outside-of-the-box” engineering thinking, and
we have no information whether anything came of it.
Despite all of this activity at the country’s most secret national laboratories,
and despite General Cabell’s desire to change at least the inside atmosphere
regarding UFO reporting, Colonel Watson at AMC had not changed one iota,
emotionally, about the subject. Watson brought in famous news columnist Bob
Considine for an in-depth interview on flying saucers. The tone of the resulting
piece was just what Cabell wanted to avoid.86

I've seen lots of flying saucers . . . and every single saucer turned out to be
the sun shining off the wing or body of a distant DC-4, or a jet, or a
weather balloon, or it was a reflection off a water-tank or something else
that is readily explainable. I don't know what it takes to convince the
public, but there are no such things as flying saucers. They don't exist.
They just don't exist!

Watson went on to characterize saucer reporting as “mass illusion” and “seasonal
hallucination,” always sparked by publicity. Then he went far over the line. He
characterized witnesses: “At the end of nearly every flying-saucer report that can
be tracked down stands a crackpot, a religious fanatic, a publicity hound, or a
malicious practical joker.” Considine asked him about commercial airline pilot
reports. Watson accused them of being fooled by fatigue-caused “optical tricks,
plus the “power of suggestion.” He went on to mock the extraterrestrial
hypothesis sarcastically.
Even if we grant Colonel Watson some space for his opinion that the
extraterrestrial hypothesis was unthinkable, the rest of his characterization of the
UFO phenomenon was off-base, and certainly was not shared by military
personnel at places like Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, et al., let alone the many pilot
and technical witnesses, or just simply good people who had honestly reported
what they had seen. What motivated Watson? He was not even in line with
current thinking at the top of Air Force Intelligence.
Ed Ruppelt, who became AMC UFO project officer just as Watson left for
assignment overseas in 1951, said this about Watson in unpublished notes from
Ruppelt’s manuscript files (writing in about 1954-6):

Colonel Watson, now a Brigadier General and once again chief of ATIC
[the renaming of AMC's T-2 intelligence division], was chief of ATIC when
I arrived. (He later went to Europe for three years). He was violently anti-
saucer but he crossed himself up too many times trying to grab publicity.
He was the one who made the famous remark about all UFO observers
being nuts or fatigued airline pilots. He continually hauled in writers who
would plug him and debunk the UFOs. I've overheard him tell how he
completely snowed Bob Considine.87

Even with Ruppelt’s frank observations, we still do not know what was really
going on in Watson’s head. But as chief of intelligence at Wright-Patterson, his
opinions mattered, both inside his own intelligence organization and when his
views were aired in public. We know from Ruppelt that Watson’s belittling
comments about UFO witnesses angered many people that Ruppelt came across
during his tenure as UFO officer. Watson’s actions demonstrated how little
control General Cabell exerted even over his own people.
Notes

1 Donald Keyhoe, “Flying Saucers Are Real,” True, January 1950: 11-13, 83-87.
2 Edward Ruppelt files.
3 Office of Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department, intelligence report,
subject: Unidentified Phenomena, 10 February 1950 (coversheet plus 5 page
report), FOIA (FBI).
4 Office of Chief of Naval Operations, intelligence report, subject: Unidentified
Phenomena, 10 February 1950, FOIA (FBI); Blue Book microfilm (OSI
records).
5 Blue Book microfilm (OSI records).
6 Anonymous (but either Dr. Paul Fitts or a paraphrase of his work),
“Psychoanalyzing the Flying Saucers,” Air Force, February 1950: 15-19.
7 Blue Book microfilm (OSI records). There is some confusion as to whether
this document properly dates to 30 January 1950 or to 8 February 1950.
8 Lindsey J. Sanford to AMC, subject: “Request for reports,” 10 March 1950,
FOIA (USAF). Brooks AFB asks for information and is concerned about
“change in attitude toward security;” memorandum by Major J. Boggs, subject:
AEC request for Grudge files, 24 May 1950 (original request 14 March 1050).
Later we will cite concerns from Far Eastern Command.
9 Robert McLaughlin, “How Scientists Tracked a Flying Saucer,” True, March
1950: 25-27, 96-99.
10 Robert McLaughlin to Dr. James Van Allen, 12 May 1949, NICAP files.
11 Blue Book microfilm (OSI files) [frankly written 25 October 1949, Report of
OSI investigation of press leakages.], cited as “Detchmendy file,” below.
12 Detchmendy file.
13 Marvin Miles, “U.S. Officers Report Seeing Flying Disks,” Los Angeles
Times, 30 August 1949, 1.
14 Miles, “U.S. Officers Report Seeing Flying Disks,” 1.
15 Detchmendy file.
16 Detchmendy file.
17 McLaughlin/True.
18 United Press, “Missiles Expert ‘Convinced’ Flying Saucers from Planets, ”
Christian Science Monitor, 23 February 1950.
19 Ruppelt, draft, 70-72.
20 Paul Ellis, “Those Flying Saucers Are Here Again,” U. P. release (NY), 8
March 1950.
21 Frank Scully, Behind the Flying Saucers, 1950.
22 C. E. Hennrick to A. H. Belmont, memorandum, subject: Frank Scully—
security matter, 20 October 1950, and A. H. Belmont to Mr. Ladd,
memorandum, subject: Flying Saucers, 19 October 1950, FOIA (FBI).
23 ---- (illegible) to Director, FBI, memorandum, 22 March 1950; D. M. Ladd to
The Director, memorandum, subject: Flying Saucers, 26 March 1950.
24 Most of these cases have at least some investigation or at least notice in Blue
Book microfilm Roll 7; also see Gross, monographs and supplements for 1950.
25 Blue Book microfilm (OSI files), 27 March 1950.
26 The “Hazen, AR” case was widely known, and so published at the time. The
best-detailed coverage is in Gross, monographs and supplements for 1950. Blue
Book microfilm is relatively scant despite the impact of the case.
27 Gross, monographs and supplements for 1950.
28 Anonymous news writer, “Arkansas Has Its Share; Pilot Sticks to His Story,”
(Little Rock) Arkansas Gazette, 24 July 1955.
29 Air Force Technical Directive #55 (not seen by the authors; referenced in
Gross, monographs and supplements, ref. 24).
30 Blue Book microfilm (“Request for Information,” Lt. Colonel DeWitt
Searles, Office of Public Information, Washington, D.C.,21 February 1952).
31 Drew Pearson, “Worried About Flying Saucers?” syndicated column,
Washington, DC, 31 March 1950.
32 Henry Taylor, “The Flying Saucer,” Your Land and Mine radio program,
Dallas, Texas, 27 March 1950. This radio broadcast was distributed as a
pamphlet over the following days.
33 Anonymous, “Flying Saucers—The Real Story,” U.S. News and World
Report, 7 April 1950: 13-15.
34 Associated Press, “White House Pooh-poohs ‘Secret Weapon’ Saucers,”
dateline: Key West, FL, 4 April 1950.
35 Associated Press, “White House Pooh-poohs ‘Secret Weapon’ Saucers;”
“CalTech Weapons Expert Also Denies Weapons Story,” additional story linked
to preceding in some papers, for example: Long Beach Press-Telegram, 5 April
1950.
36 Several 4 April 1950 newspaper citations in Gross, 1950.
37 United Press News Release, “I Saw Flying Disc, Rep. Engel Asserts,”
dateline: Washington, DC, 5 April 1950.
38 Several International News Service quotations for 6 April 1950 in Gross,
1950.
39 International News Service quotations for 6 April 1950 in Gross, 1950.
40 International News Service quotations for 6 April in Gross, 1950.
41 Douglas Larsen, “U.S. Air Force Has Flying Disc Debunker,” NEA news
release, dateline: Washington, DC, 4 April 1950.
42 Ruppelt, Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.
43 Edward R. Murrow, “The Case of the Flying Saucer,” CBS television
documentary, 7 April 1950.
44 Associated Press news release, “Mars Acts Up: Strange Formations Seen on
Planet,” dateline: Osaka, Japan, 10 April 1950.
45 Ruppelt, Report.
46 News story quotation cited in Gross (1950).
47 United Press news release, “Flying Disc-Astronomer Views Sky Visitor,”
dateline: Flagstaff, AZ, 23 May 1950. Hess’ case is covered widely in the UFO
literature, and correspondence exists (for example: James McDonald files;
CUFOS files) wherein he maintains his sighting over the decades.
48 Associated Press news release, “Rickenbacker Says Saucers Not From Mars,”
dateline: Indianapolis, IN, 12 June 1950.
49 FOIA (FBI), document not seen by authors; reported by Bruce Maccabee,
“UFO Related Information from FBI Files: Part 7,” MUFON UFO Journal,
November-December 1978: 12.
50 Colonel Rogers, Deputy for Intelligence for the Commanding General
(FEAF) to Director of Intelligence USAF, memorandum, subject: Unidentified
Object, 8 June 1950; and — (author not legible) for General C. P. Cabell,
memorandum for record, subject: to prepare response to FEAF, 31 July 1950,
FOIA (USAF).
51 Brigadier General E. Moore to Chief Evaluation Division; Chief: Air Targets
Division; Chief: Estimates Division, memorandum, subject: Unidentified
Objects, 1 July 1950; Colonel H. J. Kieling to Commanding General (FEAF),
draft letter, 31 July 1950, FOIA (USAF).
52 Colonel Barber to Colonel H. E. Watson, memorandum for Colonel H. E.
Watson, AMC (hand-carried to “save the bother of an officially coordinated
directive”), memorandum, 7 July 1950, FOIA (USAF).
53 Ruppelt, Report.
54 Lt. Col. C.J. Stattler to AFOIC (The Pentagon’s “Collections [of Information]
Division”), memorandum, subject: Special Instruction, for preparing a letter to
all major commands, 29 August 1950, FOIA (USAF), (and several related FOIA
documents of same date); and Lt. Colonel Earnest, to higher officers,
memorandum: Notice that letter to Commands has been prepared, 8 September
1950 (plus memorandum this same date noting that letter was to be sent to Army,
Navy, Coast Guard, Department of State, FBI, and CIA), and actual letter
referred to above over General Cabell’s signature (same date).
55 Colonel Harris (to higher officers), memorandum, subject: to reply to Colonel
Watson regarding “proper procedure for handling unidentified aerial object
reports,” 12 October 1950, FOIA (USAF).
56 Brigadier General E. Moore to AMC, attn. Chief, Intelligence Department,
subject (restricted): Releasing Results of Analysis and Evaluation of
Unidentified Aerial Objects Reports, — (illegible; looks to be “18”) October
1950, FOIA (USAF).
57 Ruppelt, Report.
58 Frank Scully, Behind the Flying Saucers, 1950.
59 Donald Keyhoe, Flying Saucers Are Real, 1950.
60 Clark, Encyclopedia.
61 Associated Press news release, original document not seen by authors;
referenced in Gross, 1950 Aug-Dee.
62 Appendix to the Congressional Record, Vol. 96, part 17, 20 September 1950:
A6711.
63 Colonel Clare Welch (AMC) to Brigadier General E. Moore, 1 November
1950, FOIA (USAF).
64 C. E. Hennrick to A. H. Belmont, memorandum, subject: Frank Scully,
Security Matter, 20 October 1950, FOIA (FBI).
65 Blue Book microfilm, “Department of the Air Force Staff Message,” 13
September 1950.
66 Ruppelt, Report (Ruppelt mentions his interactions with the Cambridge/MIT
group of scientists working on radar, called the Beacon Hill Group. They were
so concerned about the airspace violation problem that they wanted to take over
analysis of the UFO problem).
67 Blue Book microfilm Roll 7.
68 Blue Book microfilm Roll 7. Ruppelt also mentions incidents of theodolite
and gun-camera films, and his inability to track them down.
69 Ruppelt, Report; and Tom Tulien, UFO Oral History Video Project, Video, “J.
J. Kaliszewski” (General Mills balloon testing engineer, late 1940s-early 1950s.)
70 Blue Book microfilm, Holloman AFB HQ to Commanding General, AMC,
October 1950.
71 A. H. Belmont to Mr. Ladd, memorandum, subject: “Flying Saucers,” 19
October 1950, FOIA (FBI).
72 Belmont to Ladd, memorandum, “Flying Saucers,” 19 October 1950, FOIA
(FBI).
73 Blue Book microfilm. Edward Ruppelt writes a memorandum of “Trip to Los
Alamos on 23 October 1952,” wherein he verifies the sketchy information which
had reached AMC about these events. Other relevant items exist in the
microfilm, including a letter from Ruppelt to “Birdwatcher” Homer Gittings, and
a picture of Carter’s device.
74 Ruppelt, memorandum “Trip to Los Alamos,” and Ruppelt, Report.
75 Ruppelt, Report.
76 Blue Book microfilm, untitled document, July 1950.
77 Gross, 1950, Aug/Dec, has outstanding coverage of the October 1950 Oak
Ridge series, based wholly on the primary documents (primarily Blue Book
microfilm, OSI files).
78 Robert B. Allen, “AEC Wants Info On Flying Saucers Seen Near A-Plants,”
The Oak Ridger, (Oak Ridge), TN, 12 October 1950.
79 J. Allen Hynek, The Hynek UFO Report, 1977, 142-3. Hynek, USAF Project
Grudge/Blue Book scientific advisor, quotes the relevant Blue Book microfilm
document in his coverage of the Oak Ridge incidents.
80 A. H. Belmont to Mr. Ladd, memorandum, subject: “Flying Saucers,” 19
October 1950, FOIA (FBI).
81 U.S. Army Intelligence, IIIth CIC Detachment, Knoxville, TN, “Summary of
Information,” 21 October 1950 (original document not seen by authors; quoted
in detail in Gross, 1950, Aug-Dee).
82 Harold E. Watson (signed Frank L. Dunn; written James J. Rodgers) to
Assistant for Atomic Energy, memorandum, subject: “Unconventional Aircraft,”
15 November 1950, FOIA (USAF).
83 U.S. Army Intelligence, 111th CIC Detachment, Knoxville, TN, (“Summary
of Information,” 2 January 1952 but referring to November 1950 event).
84 Blue Book microfilm, memorandum of 4 December 1950.
85 Blue Book microfilm, OSI files, 5 December 1950.
86 Bob Considine, “Air Force Insists Imagination, Reflections Have Tricked
Public,” International News Service column, dateline: New York, 16 November
1950.
87 Edward Ruppelt, Ruppelt archive file, unpublished commentaries on military
and scientific figures that he met during his tenure as UFO Project Blue Book
chief. (This archive currently held for the Coalition for UFO Research by
Michael Swords, professor emeritus, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,
Michigan).
 Chapter 7: Transition

Let us catch our breath and begin the story of the year 1951 by summarizing
what the Pentagon’s General Charles Cabell thought was the status quo and how
he tried to fine tune it. The general deserves some sympathy. He attempted to
walk the nearly impossible line of privately stating, “We take these incidents
seriously” while publicly saying, “There is no need for you to take these
incidents seriously.” He was burdened with a need to create an atmosphere
generally disrespectful of the phenomenon, while maintaining respect for the
phenomenon’s reporters—all this plagued by the circumstances that no one knew
exactly what they were dealing with, how to understand it, and, consequently,
how to assess its national security implications.
Cabell decided to try to “split the audience” regarding the seriousness with
which one should take UFO incidents. To the public, the message would be
“don’t worry about it, but do report it just in case;” and, “for the most part,
there’s nothing to any of this.” To the military community, the message would be
“we take this very seriously; quietly look into all reasonable cases and report
them to our project.” If the world were strongly compartmentalized, this
dichotomy might have worked, but there were too many feedback loops between
the public and the military. Additionally, Cabell wanted to stop the mocking of
witnesses, citizens or military. This also was nearly impossible inasmuch as the
subtext of a statement like “the perceived object was a star, but the witness said
it was a craft,” is that the witness is a fool.
As for learning what really was going on, Cabell tended to treat each incident
as precisely that, an incident, one after another but with no relationship between
them, as he would do in normal intelligence function analysis. The purpose of a
focused project (SIGN/Grudge/soon-to-be Blue Book) was to see if any useful
pattern arose; if not, serious single incident analysis was the least they could do.
Cabell thought that his late 1950 directives had established the right tone within
the military and that other services and other airbases understood that Air
Materiel Command was back on the job and Grudge seriously at work. Colonel
Watson at AMC thought that all of this was nonsense (as we have seen), but
alleged that, yes, Project Grudge was doing its job. Captain Ruppelt, soon to
show up in the AMC intelligence division at a desk next to that of Project
Grudge, reports to us that all of Watson’s claims to Cabell about project function
were lies, and cases sometimes were thrown away, not even filed, after a cursory
reading by Project officers James Rodgers and Roy James.1 Like the difficulties
of all parenting, it is difficult to guide staff through the complexities they will
face, but it is impossible if both parents are “not on the same page” in their
message. Cabell and Watson certainly were not. And other top officers within
Air Force HQ Intelligence did not see things Cabell’s way either (people like
Jere Boggs, who, as we have seen earlier, wrote most of the policy opinion drafts
on the UFO issue between 1948 and 1950, and Colonel Edward Porter,2 Boggs’
boss two levels up, and, seemingly, Brigadier General E. Moore, who was, at
times, chief of the analysis division).3 By the end of 1951 Watson, Rodgers,
James, Boggs, Porter, and Moore would no longer be playing prominent roles in
forming policy on this topic. But, even with a wholesale change of atmosphere,
little could be done to resolve the problem of how to deal with UFOs.
An example of policy and publicity problems occurred at the beginning of
1951. In January, Secretary of the Air Force Thomas Finletter received a letter
from the President of the Aero Club of New England, Robert Sibley. The
Secretary passed this on to the Director of Intelligence, General Cabell, for a
reply.4 Why did Finletter bother to do this? The Aero Club of New England was
no trifling organization—it was and is the oldest aeronautical club (read: private
citizens dedicated to the advancement of the science of flight) in the Americas,
and thoroughly connected with the Who’s Who of the aviation community. The
Club would shortly (in 1952) begin giving out what was and is still considered
an extremely prestigious honor, The Cabot Award. Early recipients of this award
included Generals Jimmy Doolittle and Curtis LeMay. The Aero Club was a
group that could command some attention.
So what bothered Cabell’s group about the response they had to write to
Finletter? Lt. Colonel Willis, who got the job of drafting a reply, tells us that the
Aero Club disagreed thoroughly with the current attitude of the Air Force
towards UFOs. The Willis memorandum on the Aero Club letter summarized
that letter’s position thus:

. . . further inquiry into the sightings of unknown aircraft should be made.
It was the impression of the Aero Club that no notice was being taken of
the many reports concerning unidentified flying objects. The letter requests
the Air Force to resume its inquiry and consider the possibility that some
 of the unidentified aircraft sighted by reliable witnesses may have been
vehicles from a planet other than the Earth.5

This letter had to be disturbing to Cabell, as it indicated that open-minded
curiosity, bordering on enthusiasm, for the UFO phenomenon was penetrating
the established aeronautical community.
We do not have Cabell/Willis’ letter of reply; only Willis’ memorandum of
January 29, 1951. Judging by other memorandum-to-letter correlations, however,
we can be fairly certain of the letter’s contents. Willis said that the Aero Club
was sent a copy of the Air Force’s press memorandum of April 4, 1950, “a clear
cut statement of present Air Force policy.” Regardless of the press release’s
exact wording, it was buried beneath the turmoil surrounding Henry Taylor’s
claim that the saucers were ours and the flurry of countering statements that
went right up to the White House. The content of the press release must have
been pure “Grudge” (and from the hand of Jere Boggs), as that was the policy at
the time and what they told the Navy on, essentially, the same day.6 In an
attempt to get more in line with Cabell’s new approach, Willis went on to
include two statements to pacify the Aero Club: the Air Force still investigates
incidents and sends them on to AMC if deemed necessary; and an officer at the
Pentagon (Willis himself) is assigned the task of monitoring all cases of UFOs.
In other words: “Fear not, we are on the job.” Project Grudge was stated as being
eliminated, even though it was not. As an aside to his superiors, Willis said that
“there have been several incidents, during the last six months, which cannot be
explained and further investigation may be necessary,” and “to date, there has
been no physical evidence of any flying object having caused injury or
damage.”7 Willis seems to have included his own summary remarks since this
was apparently his first major UFO analysis task, having recently replaced the
great saucer antagonist, Jere Boggs.8
Another publicity problem occurred that same month. After a very skeptical
four-part article series by Bob Considine was published in national newspapers
during November 1950, the most destructive version of his interview with
Harold Watson appeared soon after. Entitled “The Disgraceful Flying Saucer
Hoax,” it appeared in the January 1951 edition of Cosmopolitan 9 and offended
people so badly that Edward Ruppelt said that many pilots forever after refused
to report cases to the Air Force.10 Nicholas Mariana, a UFO witness mentioned
by name in the article, threatened to sue the Air Force for defamation of
character and loss of business at his baseball park.11 The AMC public relations
officer, Colonel Clare Welch, helped organize Watson’s meeting with Considine
and publication with Cosmopolitan.12 Years later, in 1967, Welch was still
blissfully unaware of how out-of-tune all this was with what Cabell tried to
create. From his point of view, AMC was being deluged with hundreds of
reports, many of them hoaxes by people who “would go all over the country to
carry out a hoax,” and that the AMC engineers were totally disinterested in the
task because they had better things to do. Welch seemed to believe that the
problem was caused by people such as Donald Keyhoe, and that his and
Watson’s Considine project was aimed at defusing Keyhoe’s influence.13
Welch’s memories of those times were clearly inaccurate vis-a-vis Keyhoe’s
influence—that came later—and how much hoaxing anyone did, especially on a
cross-country scale. But what probably was accurate is this: Welch remembered
most vividly the atmosphere surrounding the subject with his boss, Watson, and
the project engineers, Rodgers and James. That attitude was that this was a)
nonsense, b) a pain in the butt, and c) a con game.14 It is astonishing how
persons sitting in slightly different information streams can come to such widely
divergent mindsets as Welch’s mildly irritated nonsense vs. DeWitt Searles’ “tell
me what to say and I’ll say it” vs. AI Chop’s (Chop replaced Welch) enthusiastic
support for flying saucer information release and ongoing investigations. All
three men were Air Force public information officers directly involved with
UFO press releases at the time.
Of course, the UFOs themselves did nothing to help out General Cabell.
Particularly uncomfortable was the continuance of incidents around Oak Ridge
and various installations in New Mexico. Such cases were not happening daily
(New Mexico cases dropped off sharply in 1951), but they were problematical
nevertheless.
January 16, Artesia, New Mexico:15 General Mills project engineers launched
a secret Skyhook balloon. The appearance of this balloon during its later flight is
known to have triggered a number of UFO reports, and the event was used as an
example of misidentification, a handy category for debunking UFO cases
generally. In the complexity that characterizes this subject, it was never
mentioned that after the General Mills personnel launched their balloon, it was
apparently “visited” by two UFOs. Two engineers saw a roundish, dull white
object approach their balloon, and then fly away. The object was larger than the
balloon. The object was an estimated 150 feet in diameter or more. The balloon’s
altitude was about 110,000 feet. Slightly later, at the Artesia airport, the
engineers again, now in the company of four civilian pilots, spotted interlopers
near their balloon. This time two seemingly identical objects moved towards the
balloon. The objects made a nearly complete circle around the balloon, and left
at high speed. They looked like disks. The General Mills people, almost
certainly because they were aware of how their colleagues had been insulted by
pejorative Air Force explanations and comments, did not report this incident.16
(We will speak more about how this case emerged later.)
January 21, Holloman AFB, New Mexico:17 Project engineers had launched a
secret Project Gopher balloon and Air Force personnel were following it, ground
and air. The pilots tracking the balloon saw what first appeared to be a smallish
(star-like) light near their device. The light seemed to be pacing the balloon. As
it neared the balloon, the light resolved itself into a round structure, clearly
outlined, about ¼ to ½ the balloon’s size. The unknown then broke away and
proceeded to the west at very high speed. Just before it disappeared it emitted a
series of brilliant flashes. General Mills engineers on the ground were later
informed of the details of the encounter. By that time, the engineers would
probably have been surprised if they had not had one.
The two pilots in the above case were on temporary assignment at Holloman,
and soon thereafter returned to their home base, which was, somewhat ironically,
Wright-Patterson.18 Once there, they apparently talked freely about their story.
They appear to have been unaware of Air Force policy (probably because of they
had just come from New Mexico where people like McLaughlin, General Mills
people, and even personnel from Los Alamos and Holloman seemed to be freely
blabbing about these occurrences all the time), because they consented to an
interview with the local newspaper, in which they told the details of their
encounter. They described the object as a milky silver object shaped like a disk,
“a dime,” at between 50,000 and 60,000 feet, hovering and then flying away at
great speed. “I saw something I never saw before,” said Captain E.W. Spradley
of the Aerial Photographic Laboratory. Naturally, the press wanted to know what
AMC thought about this. AMC’s answer: “Air Materiel Command officials said
Thursday they had received no official reports from the two officers and ‘do not
take it too seriously’.”19 There is much to ponder in that remark. We know that
the pilots did give a report to AMC, and, given the predispositions of Watson,
Rodgers, and James, we can be certain that AMC did not take it seriously. But
how could one not take it seriously? What sort of mindset allows one to dump
immediately into the analytical trash bin incidents witnessed by the Air Force’s
best technologists and its own pilots? There is something about this subject,
some barrier to its believability, some challenge of an emotional kind, which
produces the most inexplicable responses by otherwise reasonable, highly
functional, people.
March 14, Holloman AFB, New Mexico:20 The Air Force was hosting a test
of a secret aircraft manufactured by Bell Aircraft. For that time period, it was
cutting-edge technology. Bell’s engineers were in a B-50 flying at 15,000 feet
when they spotted a group of objects they could not identify, flying in a
confusing “swirl,” then breaking into a “V,” then back to a swirl and a “V”
again. The objects were slightly higher than the engineers’ plane and seemed to
be moving at a high velocity. Perhaps the Bell people got it wrong. Birds, such
as high-flying geese, can travel at well over 15,000 feet. But the Bell engineers
said that what they saw were not birds.
July 14, White Sands Proving Grounds, New Mexico:21 During a guided
missile launch, personnel saw two unidentified objects in the vicinity of the
missile and a B-29 aircraft. One of the phototheodolite trackers watched one of
the UFOs near the B-29 and took pictures. Two radar operators confirmed the
presence of the object, reporting its speed as comparable to that of a jet plane.
Development of the film revealed an oval object, which, as usual, either lacked
detail or was too far away to show it.
While these events were occurring, Project Twinkle, the Green Fireballs
project, attempted to catch the fireball phenomenon on film using dedicated
Askania phototheodolites. As mentioned previously, this project was destined for
confusion. It was given to the Air Force’s Cambridge Research Laboratory
instead of AMC. on the presupposition that the fireballs were distinctly separate
from flying disks—and perhaps they were—but Twinkle personnel encountered
reports of both. (It is important to note the irony in AMC’s efforts to separate
these events. While on the one hand the Air Force claimed that UFOs did not
exist, on the other hand they felt they were able to distinguish them from green
fireballs. Barry Greenwood delves into this issue more deeply in a sidebar at the
end of this chapter). Also, Cambridge was far from New Mexico, which created
a situation rife for misunderstanding. As long as one had a Cambridge “boss”
sympathetic to the reality and importance of the study, that was acceptable. Dr.
Anthony Mirarchi, the first Project leader, was of that temperament. He felt that
the evidence pointed towards artificial, not natural, phenomena, and
consequently, to the possibility of dangerous Soviet mischief.22 Mirarchi would
soon retire from the Air Force, and his replacement, Dr. Louis Elterman, thought
the whole business was bunk. During Elterman’s tenure, with the theodolite
surveillance up and running, green fireballs suddenly stopped appearing. From
Elterman’s point of view this meant that the phenomenon was transitory and that
continuing the Project was a waste of time.23 Dr. Mirarchi viewed the curious
cessation with more suspicion, wondering whether Air Force surveillance plans
could have been leaked to enemy agents who then altered their activities.24
Elterman declared the Project a failure, recommended closing it down (it did,
essentially, by the Fall of 1951, and formally at the end of the year), and wrote
the final report. In that report, using terms like “no information was gained”
Elterman laid the issue to rest, at least in his own mind. This approach and
phrasing by Elterman seem to point to another difference in the ways various
people respond to phenomena that are not easily categorized. Consider
Elterman’s words in the final report:

Some photographic activity occurred on 27 April and 24 May, but
simultaneous sightings by both cameras were not made, so that no
information was gained. On 30 August 1950, during a Bell aircraft missile
launching, aerial phenomena were observed over Holloman Air Force
Base by several individuals; however, neither Land-Air nor Project
personnel were notified and, therefore, no results were acquired. On 31
August 1950, the phenomena were again observed after a V-2 launching.
Although much film was expended, proper triangulation was not effected,
so that again no information was acquired.25

Most of us would probably not consider sightings by qualified observers, even if
only one camera verified a sighting, as constituting “no information.” One might
admit that triangulation would help with some parts of the information, but to
wave the phenomenon off because we only have multiple witnesses who were
technical experts and just one source of photographic supporting evidence seems
strange and risky when national security is an issue, especially if the objects
were Soviet. Nevertheless, for those of similar persuasion, Elterman’s report
killed the issue.
In 1951 Oak Ridge continued to have activity related to unidentified objects in
the sky. In January, employees of the NEPA (nuclear aircraft) division reported a
brilliant object hovering over restricted airspace.26 A check showed no aircraft
or balloons airborne at that time. As mentioned in the last chapter, AMC, in the
person of Project Grudge’s James Rodgers, had prepared a debunking
explanation for the perplexing radar reports that were occurring in the Oak Ridge
region. The explanation was the usual one: atmospheric conditions, for example,
ice-laden clouds. This apparently did not sit well with someone involved, for in
January the Pentagon sent the military command at Oak Ridge a memorandum
stating that they had analyzed the reports of the previous October 12 and 13 and
found that weather conditions were not conducive to spurious echoes on the
Knoxville radar.27
As mentioned in the previous chapter, Oak Ridge’s Colonel Hood had decided
to spread out an array of radiation detectors to search for a radiation signature of
any sort when a UFO was around. Hood was inspired to do this by numerous
rumors that the disks might be nuclear powered. Los Alamos, by the way, had
another couple of instances of possible “coincidences” of such Geiger counter
excursions with UFO sightings,28 and in mid-1951 the Air Force Cambridge
Laboratory believed there was some evidence that this might be true.
In July, Colonel Hood thought that he might have found strong evidence of a
UFO’s passage. The Oak Ridge personnel, participating mainly as a voluntary
“saucer watch” in the region around the laboratories, reported visual observation
of a UFO supported by a radar observation as well. It was found that the
radiation counters had recorded a significant rise in some kind of emissions. This
understandably excited Hood, and he wanted to pursue the possibility of hard
data by not only increased diligence at the base, but by adding new approaches,
such as a dust-catcher-equipped pursuit plane which (a la the similar procedure
used to detect copper dust from a green fireball event in New Mexico) might
capture enough detritus from the passing UFO to allow determination of what
the stuff might be that had caused the radiation.29 As far as we know, none of
this was allowed to proceed, or at least it did not proceed even with an excited
and determined officer wanting to pursue it. If the plans did not go forward, why
not? If Los Alamos could catch fireball dust, why not Oak Ridge? One would
not think that UFO incursions over Oak Ridge would be taken so lightly that a
well-known detection technology, which worked, would be ignored. It would be
nice to know what discussions occurred among higher authorities that led to this
course of inaction.
So, these are some examples of what was going on phenomenologically in the
Secret world. We will look at some other important cases later. Now we should
examine the Air Force’s public policy problems again, because they were surely
having them.
Just as Henry Taylor had caused a terrible wrong-toned message problem for
the Air Force in 1950, a scientist working for the Navy caused a similar one in
1951. Taylor had said that we should be relaxed because the saucers are our
aircraft. Urner Liddel said that we should relax because they are our balloons.
The Liddel story is curious. One can easily see how a newsman like Henry
Taylor could end up believing his sources that flying disks were secret U.S.
aircraft. It stretches the imagination to understand how a scientist working at the
nuclear desk of the Office of Naval Research could not only decide that UFOs
were Top Secret Navy balloon projects, but go public with it. In fact, Liddel’s
opinion is far odder than even that makes it sound.
Dr. Urner Liddel was a credible and respected scientist. His primary area of
expertise was atomic and molecular spectroscopy. He was also known in
scientific societies such as the Institute of Radio Engineers, the Optical Society,
and the IEEE. Liddel had served with the Navy during the war, and stayed on
afterwards as a civilian physicist at the Office of Naval Research. He was there
in late 1948, when the Project SIGN team created their chaos in the Pentagon
with their “Extraterrestrial” Estimate of the Situation. One of the fallouts of that
fiasco occurred when the Office of Naval Intelligence insisted on being informed
of cases and analyses coming into and out of Project Grudge. At about that time
Urner Liddel, sitting at his Chief of Nuclear Physics desk at the Office of Naval
Research, began collecting UFO case information out of this flow, apparently
informally (that is, it seems to have been his own idea and not a formal Navy
watchdog project).30
Because this was at the ONR, it is a very small assumption that Liddel had to
be aware that many of the most enigmatic cases were from naval personnel or
scientific personnel engaged in secret Navy projects. Somehow that blunt fact
did not prevent Liddel from writing up an unofficial report of his “study,” which
concluded that essentially every puzzling UFO report could be attributed to
naval balloons.31
The Office of Naval Research published Liddel’s report in the Research
Reviews of March 1951. The review was titled “Bogies at Angels 100.”
(“Bogies” means the unknown objects; “Angels” are one thousand foot altitude
units in the jargon of the time). In the brief piece (about four pages of print),
Liddel said that he had studied hundreds of sightings in detail (the one which he
reports in a little specificity sounds like he was, indeed, reading the Project
Grudge case files). The review is incredibly shallow and is largely a bit of
braggadocio about cosmic ray studies via the balloons. Liddel admits that some
of the balloon scientists themselves have reported UFOs, but waves them off
with insulting statements about their not being aware of things like mirages and
“internal reflections” in optical devices.
The public presentation of this was worse. Liddel's release of his pamphlet
review alerted both the newspapers and the larger media to this "authoritative"
new idea, and Richard Wilson of Look magazine gave him a lengthy
interview.32 The result of this was “A Nuclear Physicist Exposes Flying
Saucers,” in the February 27 issue. Once again Liddel used an article as a vehicle
to brag about the importance of the Skyhook balloon research. Directly relating
his private study to the Office of Naval Research, “Dr. Liddel and his associates
arrived at their findings on these baffling stories by studying about 2000 reports
of flying saucer observations of every kind and description [emphases added].”
The historian finds no evidence anywhere that Liddel worked with anyone else
on this and he, much later, wrote to Edward Condon that the work was his
own,33 and the number “2000” would be pushing it for any known available set
of case files, let alone the belief that Liddel studied them all carefully.
Nevertheless, Wilson believed it, as did many readers (including some important
ones, as we will see). Among these “2000” case reports, Liddel is quoted as
saying, “There is not a single reliable report of an observation which is not
attributable to the cosmic balloons.”34 One wonders what Charles Moore,
Commander McLaughlin, Clyde Tombaugh, etc. thought of such a preposterous
remark. Nevertheless, this became the signature quote from the Look article to
spread around the country via newspaper stories. Interviews with J J.
Kaliszewski of the General Mills launching team at the time indicated that all the
were aware of what Liddel had published, and none of them could fathom how
out-of-touch he was.35 (As a note for purists: Liddel’s initial run to the press
seems to have been to Associate Press science writer Alton Blakeslee, who
included some of Liddel’s views in an article earlier in February.36 Some people
noticed this but the impact came more with the Look story.)
Because, as is the case with many magazines, Look actually came out earlier
than the printed publishing date, newspaper notices of Liddel’s opinions were
often published alongside those of William Webster, chairman of the Research
and Development Board of the Department of Defense. Webster gave a
“Grudge” oriented opinion:

As far as I know, there is nothing to flying saucers. Careful studies have
been made and to the best of my knowledge I've never seen anyone, who,
having had an opportunity to look into the situation, believes there are
flying saucers as such.37

Webster said that these reports, which he characterized as “rumors,” arise from
people seeing clouds or airplanes under unusual viewing conditions. For all we
know, Webster may have been making an honest statement. What we can say, as
we have seen, is that it was simplistic and almost entirely false. Nevertheless,
this was the Chair of the Pentagon’s R&D Board, and it would be natural to
assume that he must know what he was talking about.
So, without some special experience or knowledge, what was John Q. Public
to think? Some people saw Liddel’s and Webster’s comments as supportive of
one another and affirming the concept that, in one sense, there were no such
things as flying saucers, and, in another, there were, but they were Navy
balloons. A great many publications jumped on this bandwagon, including
overseas media, and seemed happy to lay UFOs to rest with the comfortable
assumption that they were not Soviet devices of any sort. Still, Air Force
Intelligence did not really like the Navy solution, as some commentators were
blaming them for being so obtuse that they should have figured this out long
ago. Plus, the Air Force knew that Liddel’s theory was wrong. Aviation Week
blasted everyone, especially the Navy, for not eliminating a dangerous nonsense
concept (flying disks, UFOs) far earlier.38 It went on to trumpet an elimination
of such secrecy generally and an enhancement, thereby, of the free press. The
Air Force might have smiled at the Navy getting the brunt of the criticism, but
not at the implication the President was involved in this fiasco or the “solution”
that the military would freely talk about secret projects.
Liddel’s views did not stand unchallenged for long, but the challenge came in
one of the worst forms that the Air Force could have conceived: one of its own
former scientists went loudly public that Liddel was not only wrong but he was
dangerously wrong, because the flying saucers were indeed Soviet technology.
You can almost hear General Cabell groaning as you read the old newspaper
quotations.39
The scientist was none other than Dr. Anthony Mirarchi, the original Project
Twinkle scientific leader and former chief scientist at the Air Force’s Cambridge
Research Laboratory. Here was, then, an authority even more centrally involved
with the UFO mystery than either Liddel or Webster. Because of the cases he
reviewed while leading Twinkle, and doubtless because of the very strong views
of Dr. Lincoln LaPaz, Mirarchi became convinced that the Green Fireball
phenomenon was a) real, b) human- made, and c) Soviet.40 Liddel would have
agreed with the first two of these; Webster, really, with none of them. The Air
Force was simply puzzled by all three elements, though its policy depended
upon operating as if all three were true, but publicly communicating as if none of
them were. As usual, the Air Force would have much preferred that both Liddel
and Mirarchi had shut up.
Freely commenting about his credentials and past UFO-study involvement,
Mirarchi criticized Liddel’s views as not in the best interest of the country. “The
Navy report is erroneous. It lulls people into a false sense of security.”41 Some
few reports could have been due to mistaken viewing of naval balloon projects,
but the important cases in the Green Fireball phenomenon appeared consistent
with “a missile programmed in advance.” He reminded the nation of the critical
nature of the installations in New Mexico, including Los Alamos, and argued
that they were the targets for some form of reconnaissance. “If they were
launched by a foreign power, then they could lead to a worse Pearl Harbor than
we have ever experienced.”42 Calling on Congress to appropriate funds for
serious radar, sky watching, and photographic data-collection on the UFO topic
in general, Mirarchi blasted the government for a policy amounting to “suicide
by secrecy” and for its interference in scientific research.43 Astoundingly loose-
lipped, he gave many details from cases (including LaPaz’ project capturing
copper dust after a fly-by,) and speculated that the fireballs stopped coming
because enemy spies had tipped their superiors off that photo-tracking cameras
were in place.
Well, wow. From Air Force Intelligence’s point of view that was about as bad
as it could get. Enemy spies. Enemy devices. A new and worse Pearl Harbor. A
Pentagon Suicide by Secrecy. The Air Force had to respond, of course. What
came was a plain vanilla dismissal: “In over 500 investigations we have made so
far, we have yet to find one concrete bit of evidence to back up these reports of
flying saucers."44 Although moving much more slowly, behind the scenes the
Air Force contemplated a stronger response. Apparently instigated by the FBI, a
round of communications began taking place within Air Force Intelligence as to
whether Mirarchi should be prosecuted. The grounds for prosecution were that
Mirarchi’s loose comments specifically violated Air Force regulations (AFR205-
1, written March 14, 1949) prohibiting the release of classified information to
unauthorized individuals. Lt. Colonel Frederic Oder, Mirarchi’s one-time
colleague at Cambridge Labs, wanted prosecution:

... in [Oder's] opinion, the information released by Mirarchi to the Quincy
Patriot Ledger could cause serious harm to the internal security of the
country, pointing out that if this information were to fall into unfriendly
hands, it would definitely be prejudicial to the defense effort of this
country, both from the point of view of the prestige of our Government and
the point of view of revealing our interest in certain classified projects.45

Admittedly, Mirarchi could be charged with violating AFR 205-1 and of being
astonishingly unhelpful with his remarks, but Oder’s views seem to be a bit over
the top as well, bordering on paranoia. Air Force higher-ups felt that way, too,
and told the FBI that they did not believe that the intensity of Oder’s remarks or
a prosecution of Mirarchi was warranted. Still, it is informative that a highly
ranked Air Force scientific officer could have felt this strongly about security
violations related to UFO data. That concentration of focus on “unfriendly
hands” and the “prestige of the Government” is indicative of the obsessions of
the times. Perhaps mentioning that Oder was also undercover CIA is explanation
enough.46
 Just after all the February uproar caused by Liddel and Mirarchi, and perhaps
because it left the whole UFO business once again in confusion, Life magazine
wanted to do a story on UFOs and to visit Wright-Patterson to prepare it. We do
not know how Life obtained permission to do this; possibly due to its importance
as a national magazine; possibly that Air Force authorities felt that Mirarchi had
caused things to get out of hand and a major article showing the Air Force “On
the Job” would be helpful. General Cabell at that time had been informed that
Grudge was back doing its work and all was well. Still, the Pentagon inquired of
Watson and Rodgers if such was the case.47 Captain Ruppelt, who would take
over the Project later in the year and who was analyzing Soviet jet technology in
the same offices at the time, reports this about that awkward moment:

Back went a snappy reply: Everything is under control; each new report is
being thoroughly analyzed by our experts; our vast files of reports are in
tiptop shape; and in general things are hunky-dunky. All UFO reports are
hoaxes, hallucinations, and the misidentification of known objects.

Another wire from Washington: Fine, Mr. Bob Ginna of Life is leaving for
Dayton. He wants to check some reports.

Bedlam in the raw.48

In order to bail themselves out on their lies to Cabell, and to save face in front
of Bob Ginna, one of Life's best, the personnel at AMC attempted to brazen it
out. In his private notes, Captain Ruppelt tells us this:

The "legitimate press" first showed renewed interest in UFOs in early
1951 when Bob Ginna of Life Magazine came out to ATIC. He met AI
Chop at the AMC PIO office and came over. He was introduced to Red
Honneker [Honaker] and Jim Rogers [Rodgers]. They gave him the pitch
about thoroughly investigating everything and having this top notch
project. Actually nothing was being done and they couldn't even find the
files on the sightings he asked about. They attempted to "snow" him but I
found later they hadn't done it. All it did was to make him suspicious as
 hell. This visit scared ATIC.49

It would be several months before Ginna and his co-writer, H. B. Darrach,
finished their countrywide research and published their article,50 but actions at
ATIC/AMC began much more quickly. Air Defense Command had just issued a
letter to all of its widespread organizational elements encouraging them, in line
with Cabell’s and Pentagon thinking, to be concerned and to report
unconventional aircraft sightings in a timely manner.51 The ever-unrepentant
Harold Watson at ATIC/AMC seems to have taken this as an excuse to lobby
Cabell to get his organization out of the UFO business and leave it to the Air
Defense Command (ADC). A lengthy reproduction of Watson’s views is, for the
reader’s benefit, warranted:

This Command [AMC] has investigated thousands of reports on
unidentified flying objects over the past several years. The project was
originally initiated at Air Materiel Command several years ago as a result
of numerous incidents occurring throughout the country where people
indicated that they had seen unidentified flying objects, or so-called flying
saucers. Extensive investigations of many incidents were made and
conclusions were drawn on each incident and insofar as the facts available
would permit, it was concluded that the objects did not represent a
development of any foreign power.

Many of the incidents cannot be fully explained because of the lack of facts
upon which to base a technical investigation. However, a great number of
the incidents were found to be the result of unusual cloud formations,
balloons, meteors, sunlight reflecting from aircraft, etc. In August 1949 a
report was prepared entitled "Unidentified Flying Objects Project
Grudge," and the project was cancelled.

In October 1950 the project was reinitiated at the request of your
headquarters. Since that time hundreds of reports have been received and
investigated. The conclusions which have been drawn since the re-
initiation of the project are for all practical purposes identical to those
 drawn in the earlier investigations.

In view of the above, it appears that the project as it exists has been
carried on to such an extent that it has been established that there are little
if any results being obtained which are significant from the standpoint of
technical intelligence, other than to conclude that so-called unidentified
aircraft are not considered to be air weapons of a foreign power.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, it is considered that it would be
impracticable in connection with Air Force responsibilities to say that we
are no longer interested in any incidents of the aforementioned nature.

Accordingly, it is felt that the project requirements should be revised to
assure that all unidentified aircraft are reported without delay and by
expeditious means to the Air Defense Command. In the event that any of
these incidents require technical interpretation or analysis, AMC could be
called on to carry out this work as required by ADC provided that
sufficient significant technical details are supplied to furnish a basis for
such a study.52

In other words: if you have something that is actually important, send it on to us.
Otherwise, let ADC do it.
For several months the Pentagon did not formally reply. But change was in the
wind. Watson was apparently notified that his assignment would change by the
end of the year, and his replacement, a much more open-minded and less
outspoken colonel named Frank Dunn, was onsite and learning his way into the
job. James Rodgers was reassigned within AMC in May, and another much more
open- minded Lieutenant named Jerry Cummings got the UFO desk. Informally,
“Grudge” was supposed to be back in serious operation, although Ruppelt
reports that Rodgers and Roy James would still intercept incoming cases and
never bother passing them on to Cummings.53
Cummings had not only these difficulties of clearing unwanted old hands out
of the way, but also trying to get some semblance of order into things generally.
A later staff report contains this:

 In July 1951, this project was reorganized. A review of the data available
at that time showed that the first three assumptions made in the 1949
report [mass hysteria, hoaxes, psychopathological persons] probably were
not valid. The basis for this was the fact that although publicity had been
at a low ebb, or nearly non-existent, between 1949 and 1951, reports from
good sources continued to come in to ATIC.

These reports were mainly from military personnel, and could be classed
as good reports.

To us, a good report is one in which several people were involved and the
motives of these people in making the report cannot be questioned. They
have made comparatively careful observations and have reported
everything that they observed.54
In mid-1951, it seems, the Air Force project began to reside in more thoughtful
hands.
Air Defense Command had spread the word to bases all over. AMC/ATIC
personnel seemed to be going towards a reasonable transition. Was Cabell finally
getting it right? In September, he accomplished his penultimate impact on the
subject: the Air Force issued JANAP 146(B).55 To make sense of the
significance of this action, it is appropriate now to take a short step back in time
to reflect upon how the military communicated vital information between its
structures.
During WWII there existed an “Order” which went by the acronym CIRES
(Communications Instructions for Reporting Emergency Sightings). This told
pilots and other personnel what they must do in all cases of “sightings” which
involved everything from enemy aircraft to our own planes or civilians in
trouble.
After the war it was apparent that the United States' structure of three distinct
military organizations was too disorganized, and “Joint Committees” of the
Armed Forces were initiated to deal with this problem. On the issue of
communicating vital intelligence of the CIRES type, a Joint Communications-
Electronics committee was established. The committee initiated the JANAPs
(Joint Army Navy Air Force Publications) that would apply to all three services,
regardless of which service was the “lead agency” in the particular concern.
CIRES was revised and became JANAP 146-CIRMIS (Communication
Instructions for Reporting Military Intelligence Sightings). It was from JANAP
146 that military bases took their orders whenever a UFO incident occurred.56
This revision took place in the summer of 1948, but its implementation was
delayed by some concerns about civilian pilots involved in non-U.S. airspace
accidents. (JANAP 146 did not apply to UFO incidents only). There was also a
desire, coming surprisingly from outside the Air Force, that JANAP 146 be
utilized, as one point of emphasis, to ensure that civilian pilots having UFO
encounters report those encounters according to military chains of command.
This interest was inspired in major part by the then-famous July 1948 Eastern
Airlines near-miss encounter with an apparent UFO. (The Chiles-Whitted case,
which we have described earlier and which was reported as very rocket or
missile-like.) The Air Force’s chief of intelligence at the Pentagon, General
Charles Cabell, agreed with this use of JANAP 146, and it was distributed to all
Air Force bases during December of 1948. Note, therefore, that reporting
channels for UFO incidents prior to that time were not clearly established. As
with all orders, confusion occurred anyway. When the initial SIGN/Grudge UFO
analysis project was established in early 1948, most Air Force organizations had
been told in a less universal, piecemeal, fashion to report UFO incidents to Air
Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson AFB. Some did, while others sent their
reports to the Pentagon. Some, because the concept of a UFO was not clearly
interpretable, did not send certain reports at all. Whatever came in allegedly got
to Project SIGN. It is certain that reports containing particularly sensitive
information did not. Apparently, actionable judgments were being made.
The confusion was not helped when the Pentagon announced in 1949 that the
UFO Project was closed. Although that announcement was aimed at the public,
the policy within the Air Force wallowed in total confusion. At Wright-
Patterson, the chief of technical intelligence, Colonel Harold Watson, was more
than happy to reduce his effort to a disorganized, station-keeping, report-filing,
two-man operation.57 At the Pentagon, General Cabell thought that Wright-
Patterson was still doing the work, though now as a normal, serious, intelligence
function. External commands, such as the Far East Air Force (FEAC) and the
Continental Air Command (ConAC), did not know what to think. Where should
their cases go, if anywhere?
Partly as a response to his growing awareness of this confusion, Cabell
revisited JANAP 146 and the Joint Committee approved JANAP 146A: CIRVIS
in September 1950. CIRVIS is “Communications Instructions for Reporting
Vital Intelligence Sightings.” CIRVIS stated that all vital intelligence sightings
would be reported in two ways: to the Air Defense Command (ADC), and to the
Office of the Secretary of Defense. Once again, as far as UFO reports were
concerned, Cabell’s office failed to alleviate the confusion. Neither ADC nor the
Secretary of Defense is Wright-Patterson, which handled Air Force UFO
Intelligence analysis. Nevertheless the new order went out in December of 1950.
The policy would not be clarified completely until 1953.58
The apparent dichotomy of orders in JANAP 146A (send vital
communications to ADC or the Department of Defense) and the Air Force’s
“new” reinforced policy (to send them to ATIC/AMC at Wright-Patterson)
continued to cause trouble. Cabell tried again in 1951 to clear things up. On
September 6, JANAP 146B was issued with the signature of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. It was titled: “Communications Instructions for Reporting Vital
Intelligence Sightings from Aircraft.”59 JANAP 146B may be considered an
improvement only if one assumes that the Air Force had sharpened up its
activities internally (i.e. beyond the literal words of the document). The
September 1951 JANAP stated three things of particular interest:

1. Unidentified Flying Objects were specifically singled out as the subject
for serious consideration in CIRVIS reporting;
2. The (usual) strong reminder was issued that all CIRVIS reports are of
“vital importance to the security of the United States” and that such
communications are governed by espionage laws; consequently, the
transmission of information contained in these reports to any unauthorized
person is prohibited by these laws;
3. All CIRVIS reports will be forwarded in three ways: a) to the
Commanding General of Air Defense Command; b) to the Secretary of
Defense’s office in Washington, D.C.; and c) to the nearest U.S. military
command.

The first two of these points served to emphasize the seriousness of the reports in
the mind of Air Force Intelligence. Not as clear is what the third point
accomplished. It seems to be a recognition that UFO reports are probably caused
by a wide variety of events. Some of these might well be of immediate interest to
Air Defense, and some might well be of immediate interest to the local military
authority. Both departments should get the timely report. Other cases could have
broader intelligence concerns. Thus, reports should also go to Washington,
where the Department of Defense will transmit them to both the CIA and Air
Force Intelligence at a minimum. So far, we have still not seen how AMC/ATIC
would be involved. At this point, though not specifically laid out by JANAP
146B, Air Force Intelligence would transmit the reports to other elements within
its organization, as appropriate. Translation: they would go to Wright-Patterson.
If, as JANAP 146B insisted, those reports were “delivered immediately” and “by
the most expeditious means available” to the Pentagon, then Wright- Patterson
could still receive the information relatively quickly. The solution to the
communications “chain” was to send reports to Washington D.C. and to make
the exchange rapid. Making this all slightly more orderly was the fact that Air
Force Intelligence had decided in the Summer of 1951 that the Intelligence
Division at Wright-Patterson (symbolically called “T-2”) would be designated
the “Air Technical Intelligence Center” (ATIC) and become an operation more
closely allied to the Pentagon than to the other functions of Air Materiel
Command (it would report directly to it in about another year).
Getting back to what was really going on at Wright-Patterson, i.e. ATIC, we
had mentioned how Watson had been regularly politicking the Pentagon to dump
UFOs and stick ADC with the job. Even with the new JANAP, it was obvious
that Watson would need another direct communication. Such a letter ultimately
came his way, following an explosive meeting at the Pentagon in mid-
September. The story of the Ft. Monmouth sighting and consequent events
represented a “catastrophe turning point” in this labored transition, which the Air
Force made in its policies.
September 10, 1951, 11:10 a.m. military radar at Ft. Monmouth picked up an
unknown following the coastline and moving at high velocity.60 The radar
return was sharp and strong, more so even than a return from a large aircraft. The
radar operator said that it was more equivalent to a radar return from an ocean
vessel, but obviously moving far too fast for that. At about 11:35 a.m. an Air
Force pilot on a training mission, along with a major who was in the plane with
him, observed a lenticular disk about 40 feet in diameter. It flew much below
their altitude of 20,000 feet; they estimated it at approximately 5000-8000 feet.
The object was over Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The pilot banked and descended
towards the object, but it made a banking 90° turn and rapidly left the area,
disappearing out to sea. The Air Force officers felt that its speed was amazing.
The crew of the plane had been talking to the ground over a “public”
frequency during their encounter, and a civilian on the ground picked up the
transmission. The contents of that military conversation rapidly spread among
the local civilian population. Later, the pilots were in a public place and were
overheard by a newsman discussing it. He queried them on it and got part of the
story. (Note that this violates JANAP 146B.) The story hit the news and all the
big East Coast papers wanted more information from the local base.
Pandemonium ensued, only to be met by a flat refusal from the base to speak
about it. The base Commander and Public Information Officer apparently did
know what the policy was.61
Meanwhile a report was sent to Air Defense Command. ADC considered the
incident significant and seems to have sent the report on to the Pentagon and
directly to Wright Patterson. At the Pentagon, two issues were clear to General
Cabell: the Ft. Monmouth/ADC report and that a big news leak had happened
over it. We will see his response shortly. At ATIC (at Wright Patterson),
something helpful to our understanding of how botch-ups can happen in serious
matters took place. We know this almost blow-by-blow because Edward
Ruppelt, a primary witness to some of it, and a close secondary witness to the
rest, left the details in Ruppelt’s files.
For full understanding of what happened, an outline of ATIC’s command
structure at the time is presented (see the chart on page 125.) The commanding
officer at ATIC headquarters, Colonel Watson, was in and out during the summer
and early fall, as his replacement, Colonel Frank Dunn, began to get the feeling
for the job. Watson had several offices and three Technical Divisions under him.
The main one, and the one we are interested in, was the Technical Analysis
Division. This is where issues involving current or projected air technology
problems, particularly as concerned enemy or unknown technology, were
analyzed. The chief of this division was Colonel Brunow Feiling, a veteran
intelligence man and an engineer. Among those immediately working for him
was Albert Deyarmond, the former Project SIGN engineer, who had been around
since the beginnings of the flying disk problem and had suffered, and survived,
the winds of change.62
Beneath the Technical Analysis Division headquarters office were twelve
areas called sections or branches. These were category areas, broken down
according to the nature of the technological threat that a given report, set of
reports, or retrieved hardware, identified. The titles are explanatory enough:
“Aircraft and Propulsion,” “Performance and Characteristics,” “Nuclear
Energy,” “Armament,” etc. The chief of the Performance and Characteristics
Branch was Lt. Colonel Nathan Rosengarten. The other section chiefs knew and
worked constantly with one another, and all this was housed in the same
building.

FIXME: missing chart

Under Rosengarten’s command were several projects, often composed of one
or a very small number of officers, the “desks” of which were often side by side
in the same room. Lieutenant Jerry Cummings occupied the Grudge “desk,” now
that James Rodgers was assigned elsewhere in the sections structures. Near
Cummings’ project desk was Lieutenant Edward Ruppelt, then involved with a
project on the performance characteristics of the Soviet MIG aircraft. A person
such as Roy James was in an entirely different branch and project, involving
“Electronics” (i.e., Radar). Into this apparently orderly situation dropped the
ADC report of the Ft. Monmouth incident. ATIC headquarters received it and
sent it down to Brunow Feiling. He read it and, since a radar return was
involved, chose to send it not to Rosengarten’s branch, but to “Electronics” and
Roy James. Why Feiling made this error we do not know. The case was an
obvious unidentified object incident since it had visual confirmation by airborne
military witnesses.
The material from ADC had an urgent tone about it, and James got his old
buddy James Rodgers to read the report and decide how urgently to dismiss it.
Somehow Lt. Colonel Rosengarten heard that James and Rodgers were
inappropriately handling an unidentified flying object report and informed
Cummings about it. Cummings, Rosengarten, Feiling, and Rodgers all gathered
in Feiling’s office for a jurisdictional shoot-out. Rodgers claimed that he had
taken this over because Cummings was slow in his analyses, and the Pentagon
wanted a fast response. “Rodgers’ solution,” that the “whole outfit [at Ft.
Monmouth] were a bunch of young impressionable kids and the T-33 crew had
seen a reflection,” was something Rodgers claimed that he had already discussed
and cleared with Watson. Rosengarten and Cummings both disliked not only the
territorial usurpation of Cummings’ assignment, but also the seeming severe
mismatch of the report and the “solution.” All this—from ADC wire reception,
to “solution”, and confrontational meeting—occurred in about three hours.
Given a meeting with Watson in between those events, Rodgers and James were
being very efficient indeed. It helps one's speed, of course, when the
investigation is bypassed.63
A wire then arrived in Feiling’s office from the Pentagon. General Cabell’s
office wanted to know what ATIC planned to do about the Ft. Monmouth case.
Rodgers was to send the “solution” to them to “get them off our backs” (all these
details and quotes are in Edward Ruppelt’s notes from his discussion of this with
Jerry Cummings later). Someone (perhaps Feiling) decided to call the Pentagon
directly. Cabell’s assistant (probably Colonel Schweizer) was on duty. The
assistant was astonished that any debate was taking place “as to whether or not
anyone would go out and investigate the report.” Feiling then lied and said that,
of course, there was never a question that they would go to investigate. Cabell’s
assistant then said that the General took this so seriously that they should “get
him out of bed” if they were not getting cooperation.
Therefore debate ended and both Rosengarten and Cummings were on their
way to New Jersey. Their actual investigation was less than spectacular. Military
personnel were not always trusting of them, doubtless due to the fouled
atmosphere over UFOs that people like Watson had created. The pilots were
absolutely convinced that they had seen an unconventional “intelligently
controlled” vehicle and were put off by ATIC’s attempt to explain it as a balloon.
The radar people had kept very poor records, and Cummings wondered whether
all they had seen was the T-33 aircraft (despite the time differential).
Nevertheless, the fieldwork now done, Cummings and Rosengarten were
allowed to charter a plane at Pentagon expense (very unusual, by the way) to see
General Cabell as soon as possible.
The meeting is famous in UFO history. Cabell, of course, was there himself.
Many Pentagon officers, plus a few civilian aircraft technologists, attended.
While Cummings and Rosengarten were in New Jersey, Cabell had personally
phoned ATIC to ask what was going on. Watson or Feiling handed the call to
James Rodgers. Rodgers’ inability to give Cabell what he considered to be
proper answers made the General suspicious that what he thought to be true
about Project Grudge was in fact not true at all. Therefore, when Cummings and
Rosengarten finished their statements about Ft. Monmouth, Cabell turned to
Cummings and asked him for a frank assessment of the project. Rosengarten
nodded to Cummings to go ahead and let fly.64
Cummings, about to leave the service anyway for an engineering job at Cal
Tech, did. Both Watson and Rodgers were fingered for bias, which resulted in
various forms of incompetence, including neglect (some cases lost or thrown
away) and inappropriate analysis (such as simply trying to think up new and
original explanations that had not been sent to Washington before). Everything
had been treated as a joke.
This meeting was recorded on the old form of “wire” recording, as
Rosengarten and Cummings wanted the people back at ATIC to hear the General
in full voice. Edward Ruppelt was one person who heard it before it was ordered
destroyed. It made quite an impression on him as, doubtless, it did on everyone
else. These are some of the quotes Ruppelt remembered from General Cabell.
They are probably not precise, but in all likelihood suggest the tone accurately.
(A copy of Ruppelt’s notes are included in the appendix.)
Cabell, hearing about Watson’s and the Project’s absolute antithetical bias: “I
want an open mind. In fact, I order an open mind. Anyone that does not keep an
open mind can get out, now. As long as there is any element of doubt [about
what this phenomenon is], the Project will continue.”65
After one of his staff suggested that perhaps the civilian aero- engineers did
not need to hear this, Cabell said he did not care how embarrassing it was, and
he was not ashamed to give people hell as long as they deserved it. He was
especially miffed by the description as to how his personal orders were just
disregarded.
As to answers: “What do I have to do to stir up the action? Anyone can see
that we do not have a satisfactory answer to the saucer question.”
Cabell then turned to face the Pentagon officers. A long silence issued
(Ruppelt says “45 seconds”). Then: “I’ve been lied to, and lied to, and lied to. I
want it to stop. I want the answer to the saucers and I want a good answer.”66
One of the most intransigent of the Pentagon officers, Colonel Edward Porter
(one of Major Boggs’ main bosses), said that he thought the whole Project was a
waste of time. Cabell confronted him with a statement that he did not see himself
as some sort of crackpot, and that he had a great deal of doubt in his mind about
the current [Grudge] stance that the saucers were all “hoaxes, hallucinations, or
the misinterpretation of known objects.” The Grudge report, he said, was the
“most poorly written, inconclusive piece of unscientific tripe” he had ever
read.67
After that withering experience, things changed in many ways, some by
accident, some by design. Watson was out and Dunn was in as head of ATIC.
Cummings got enough cooperation to begin organizing the Project before
leaving it to Ed Ruppelt. Even Brunow Feiling was reassigned. His replacement
was Colonel S. H. Kirkland. At the Pentagon, the “UFO desk,” already vacated
by Boggs, was in the hands of a station-keeper, but soon to be occupied by the
very sympathetic Major Dewey Fournet. Although Colonel Porter was still
around, Fournet would be insulated from him by two layers of colonels (Weldon
Smith and William Adams) whose views ranged from sympathetic neutrality to
positive bias on the subject.68 Porter himself was sandwiched both above and
below his rank in the intelligence chain when General Cabell himself left to be
replaced by General John Samford. Samford’s primary assistant, Brigadier
General William Garland, had seen a UFO himself. The “corporate atmosphere”
on flying object reports and analysis was in total change. We will see what the
results of that shift were in the following chapter. Before we move on, however,
it is worth reinforcing the attitude of Cabell towards the reality of the problem by
visiting a few more of the cases themselves.
July 9, Dearing, Georgia:69

Object sighted by 1/Lt. George H. Kinmon, Jr., 160 Tac Recon Sq. Lawson
AFB, Ga., at 1340, 9 July 51 until about 1350, same date. Object
described as flat on the bottom and appearing from a front view to have
rounded edges and slightly beveled. From front view as object dived from
top of plane was completely round and spinning in a clockwise direction.
From front view as object dived observer noted small spots on the object
which he described as being similar to craters observed on the moon
through a high powered telescope. Object did not appear to be aluminum.
Only one object observed. Color white. No vapor trails or exhaust or
visible system of propulsion. Described as traveling at tremendous speed.
Object appeared near Dearing, Ga., 25 miles West of Augusta, Ga., while
pilot was on a routine flight from Lawson AFB, Ga. Pilot had leveled off at
8,500 feet altitude on a course of 247 degrees. As he leveled off, object
 dived from the sun in front and under the plane and continued to barrel
roll around the plane for a period often minutes, when it disappeared
under the plane. Pilot states object was 300 to 400 feet from plane and
appeared to be 10 to 15 feet in diameter. Pilot states he felt disturbance in
the air described as 'bump' when object passed under plane. Object left the
plane a few miles South of Milledgeville, Ga., and 15 to 20 miles from
Macon, Ga. Pilot was flying a F-51 at 270 miles per hour when object was
sighted. Weather conditions .6 to .8 broken clouds. Wind 2 to 7 miles per
hour.

October 10, St. Croix, Wisconsin:70 This is another report from the General
Mills balloon team. A test launch supervisor, J. Kaliszewski, and colleague, J.
Donohue, were following their balloon in a chase plane, when another object
came down from above and approached the balloon. The unknown was
featureless with a soft glow. In approximately two minutes of total observation,
the object leveled its flight, crossed behind the balloon, made an abrupt turn, and
then accelerated up at a 50° angle at very high speed until lost to vision at height.
Kaliszewski said: “From past experience I know that this object was not a
balloon, jet, conventional aircraft, or celestial star.” The very next day, flying
with a different colleague, Richard Reilly, Kaliszewski again observed an
unidentifiable object. Just north of Minneapolis, again monitoring a balloon from
the air, they saw a brightly glowing object, which, for a change, had not
rendezvoused with one of their balloons.

This object was peculiar in that it had what can be described as a halo
around it with a dark undersurface. It crossed rapidly and then slowed
down and started to climb in lazy circles slowly. The pattern it made was
like a falling oak leaf inverted. It went through these gyrations for a couple
of minutes and then with a very rapid acceleration disappeared to the east.
This object, Dick and I watched for approximately five minutes.

I don't know how to describe its size, because at the time I didn't have the
balloon in sight for a comparison.

 Shortly after this we saw another one, but this one didn't hang around. It
approached from the west and disappeared to the east, neither one leaving
any trace of a vapor trail.

When I saw the second one I called our tracking station at the U. of M.
Airport and the observers there on the theodolite managed to get glimpses
of a number of them, but couldn't keep the theodolite going fast enough to
keep them in the field of their instruments, both Doug Smith and Dick
Dorian caught glimpses of these objects in the theodolite after I notified
them of their presence by radio.

The ground observers corroborated the air report of the last objects, as follows:

The object was visible in the theodolite for little under two seconds and
appeared to be smoky gray (no halo or glow was noticed), cigar shaped,
left no vapor trail and gave off no reflection such as sun reflected by
metal... [and] that during their period of visual observation they saw two
more like objects which finally formed in straight pattern after the first and
all departed at same time.71

As mentioned earlier, the General Mills technologists were so irritated by what
they considered to be incompetent and insulting handling of incidents like these
that they rarely were motivated to report them to the Air Force.72
October 9, Indiana and Illinois:73 In an apparent independently witnessed
event, a Civilian Aviation Authority (CAA) employee at an airport in Terre
Haute, Indiana, observed a silvery disk or flattened ball-shaped object approach
the airport and fly directly overhead at high speed. It had a very shiny metallic
sheen and was apparently quite large: “the size of a 50-cent piece held at arm’s
length.” Shortly after, a civilian pilot, flying in the vicinity of Paris, Illinois, saw
a large, metallic (shiny) object, looking like a flattened ball and hovering in the
sky. The pilot banked his plane and flew towards it. The UFO then accelerated
away and disappeared at distance. Ed Ruppelt checked this case himself and
concluded that the witnesses’ reports coincided exactly. All the rest of his
checking (balloons, aircraft, meteors, even the witness backgrounds) left him
without any explanations. The policy for such things was to simply write
“Unknown” or “Unidentified” on the Project record card, and go on to the next
case. This is mentioned to reinforce the frustration that people who want answers
face in dealing with UFOs. They do not get them. For those with a low tolerance
for ambiguity, this is, in some sense, an unacceptable situation. Many persons
who have been involved with such matters end up losing their objectivity and
yearn to “come to a conclusion.” This seems to have happened to Air Force
personnel all the time during these years, and, of course, to civilians as well.
Edward Ruppelt was not one of those types of personalities. He seems to have
been able to accept a very large “gray basket” of Unknowns and continue to do
his job.
December 12, Hastings, Minnesota:74 An Air Force captain was piloting his
F-51 on a test flight. The skies were exceptionally clear, except for a strange-
looking object off to the left. The white “thing,” which at a larger distance
looked a bit like a kite (the pilot realized that kites at 10,000 feet altitude were
unlikely), resolved itself upon approach as a spinning, roundish blur. It was
changing speeds and seemed to maneuver. Getting very close now, the object
looked like two small two-foot diameter disks only one foot apart and moving in
tandem. They then accelerated to about 400 mph and disappeared at distance.
This encounter is mentioned because the pilot was Donald K. [Deke] Slayton,
who would become one of the original American astronauts.
November and 24, Selfridge Air Force Base, Michigan, and surrounding
environs:75 This case is not included here because it is a probable unknown, but
because it says something to us about the state of reporting and Air Force
publicity attitudes. Between 6:20 and 6:25 in the evening, in at least four
locations in Michigan, persons witnessed and reported a bright, white roundish
object flying (generally as stated) to the southwest. These people included three
Air Force personnel, with one Tower operator and one civilian airline crew. Due
presumably to the civilians, the incident was reported to newspapers, whereupon
the Air Intelligence Technical Center found out about the sighting. It was not
reported to ATIC by Selfridge AFB where two of the witnesses viewed the
object. When the newspaper contacted ATIC and Ed Ruppelt about the case,
ATIC knew nothing and was, undoubtedly, not happy about it. Once again,
JANAP 146B had not penetrated sufficiently into every command. An
immediate reply was requested. Whether that happened is not known, but by late
December Ruppelt was still seeking information. He even composed a letter to
appear in newspapers around southern Michigan to appeal to citizens to report
what they may have seen of the incident (Ruppelt was very interested as to
whether the object flew a straight track). Ruppelt had a creative idea there but
was obviously naive as to the Pentagon’s position on exciting the public interest
by overt demonstrations of the Air Force’s own interest. He got word from his
commanding officer, at this time Colonel Dunn, that they were not going to
advertise in the newspapers.
Late August through early September, Lubbock, Texas:76 The famous
“Lubbock Lights.” This puzzling business was so prominent that it needs at least
a mention. It is, unfortunately, so complicated that any brief treatment cannot do
it justice. However, the interested reader can always get more information.
Sometime during the last two weeks of August, citizens of Lubbock, Texas,
were puzzled by greenish-white, glowing, objects, often in groups, flitting about
their skies. Because the phenomenon repeated over about a two-week period,
many people began night sky watching for the lights. What particularly
interested Project Grudge was a report that four Texas Tech college professors
had seen the objects. Ed Ruppelt was intrigued by the fact that the professors had
seen their formation of lights at a time very close to when an employee of Sandia
base and his wife saw a huge metallic “flying wing shaped” craft with pairs of
lights along the wings. A high-speed object could easily travel the distance
between Albuquerque and Lubbock in a brief time. There was also a radar report
from Washington State which calculated a velocity of a bogey there at something
in the neighborhood of 900 mph. Ruppelt noted that at such speed, given the
times that people were reporting, one object could have accounted for all three
events. He knew that this was only guesswork, but it is what a good intelligence
analyst begins with. Several days later in Lubbock, an amateur photographer out
looking for the lights produced four photos of what seemed to be an array which
either maintained rigid formation, or which was Attachéd to an undeterminable
structure very much like a flying wing. Carl Hart’s photos have been the source
of unrelenting controversy.
To tease this complexity apart, we can state the following:
1. The flying wing case reported by the Sandia couple has never been
explained;
2. When shown Carl Hart’s photos by the Air Force, the couple
immediately felt that this is what they saw;
 3. Hart’s ability to get the clarity that he achieved in two of the photos,
with a hand-held camera at night, was doubted by Air Force photo
analysts;
4. Ruppelt’s giving the Washington state radar case to Roy James resulted
in an old-style Grudge opinion that the returns were caused by weather
conditions. Additionally, when Ruppelt conveyed the opinion to the people
in Washington by a phone call, their response was less than polite. As
Ruppelt said: “the long distance wires between Dayton and Washington
melted.”77
Although the above shows that nothing was settled, we will leave those issues
alone, and say a little more about the observations made by the professors.
These people were all scientifically and technologically trained: a geologist, a
chemical engineer, a petroleum engineer, and a physicist. One evening, they saw
a semi-circular formation fly overhead. It was fast and difficult to see accurately.
There were so many lights that they could not even make a good estimate
(“fifteen to thirty”). One hour later, a similar group, but not in any formation,
flew over. The professors decided to meet on consecutive nights and sky watch.
They made twelve more sightings over the next few weeks. The objects always
traveled north to south, and once appeared three times in the same evening. So,
why wasn’t the obvious interpretation migrating birds? Some people thought
they were. Some said some were, but other cases were not: they had seen both
and could, in their minds, clearly distinguish. Some said that it was obvious that
the main incidents were not things like ducks or geese, as one could neither hear
their incessant honking, nor see wings flapping when sky conditions and “object
brightness” would ensure that those features would be evident.
For a long while, the Texas Tech professors were in the latter camp. They kept
records and often communicated with ATIC. They also became better known
than they would have liked, which caused them, as members of the academic
community, some level of irritation. As time passed, so did the phenomenon, and
without resolution. Then one day, Ed Ruppelt received a final communication
via a Western Union telegram that is shown on the following page: the
professors had figured it out; they were embarrassed and they did not want
Ruppelt to tell anyone what they felt they had seen. In his Report on
Unidentified Flying Objects, Ruppelt honored this request with only “a very
commonplace and easily explainable natural phenomena.”78
 What was the professors’ solution? They would never tell Ruppelt, or, if they
did, he refused to mention it in his files. Whatever it was—birds, moths, some
other flying bit of nature—the “ducks” answer tended to stick over the years.
Conveniently ignored, as far as this theory is concerned, was something another
Texas Tech professor had done. R. S. Underwood was a member of the
mathematics faculty at the college. He, like the others, was curious about the
lights and kept watch and notes. One evening, he and his wife observed three
flights, one of which passed directly overhead. During that same evening, his
father-in-law and a neighbor also watched flights. For the third flight, as it
happened, both Underwood and his father-in-law had good time information.
Being a math professor, and doing

WESTERN UNION
0B391 DA561
F.LUA543 ML PD=LUBBOCK TEX 17=
EDWARD J RUPPELT=
1911 JOSIE AVE LONG BEACH CALIF=

REGRET CONSENSUS OF GROUP IS THAT PRESENT QUIET STATUS
SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS FROM
THIS GROUP CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE NATURAL PHENOMENON
WAS OF SO COMMONPLACE A NATURE AS TO HOLD LITTLE IF ANY
NARRATIVE VALUE PLEASE QUOTE NEITHER MY LETTER
CONVERSATION NOR THIS WIRE REGARDS=
DUCKER=

Professor Ducker’s telegram to Ruppelt

the trigonometry, Underwood calculated that the group was somewhat but not
greatly higher than 2000 feet above ground, which worked out to an approximate
700 miles per hour at a low end estimate. The height is fine for birds; 700 miles
per hour is not. Underwood told the original Tech foursome about this but they
did not want to accept his conclusions. He then wrote Ruppelt at ATIC, where
the letter was placed in a mixed file of correspondence and may never have been
read.70 No mention of it appears in the Project records, and it was only
discovered years later. Regardless, Lubbock had burdened people, especially the
original professors, too long. They wanted a solution. They wanted to move on.
A final phenomenological note for 1951: Military pilots in France had a
puzzling encounter in June when two French Vampire jets encountered a large
metallic craft. That and other incidents seemed to mobilize elements of the
French military establishment to take up interest in the subject. By the Fall or
earlier, it became known that General Lionel Chassin, chief of staff of the French
Air Force, and his assistant, Colonel Clerouin, had become extremely interested
in the subject, authoring articles and supporting case investigations.80
Ed Ruppelt ended the year attempting to firm up the Project organization by
building greater ties to important organizations, such as the Air Defense
Command; bringing more technical aid to the general overview of the situation
via the Battelle Memorial Institute; and briefing the new powers in the Pentagon.
Those new powers were the chief of intelligence John Samford, and his primary
aide, William Garland.

Green Fireballs
CENSORSHIP: THE KIRTLAND FIREBALL CATALOG 81
Government censorship has always been a curious thing. The intent is to keep
outsiders from knowing certain facts. Sometimes it is done for practical
purposes; i.e. to protect legitimate national security concerns. For example, the
exact method and materials for making an atomic weapon should not be publicly
available; people can be blown up! Sometimes censorship is performed for
political purposes, i.e. to hide waste and ineptness by government officials. Such
certainly cannot be justified for the greater good, but in our imperfect society it
is done nevertheless. Sometimes the censorship backfires and reveals more than
it was intended to hide.
Censorship has generally been counterproductive where the UFO topic has
been concerned. The government’s intent was to hide information and prevent
the public from paying undue attention to UFO reports. However, the censorship
was often unnecessarily and ineptly applied, leading to public suspicion that
great secrets were being suppressed. Maybe there are or are not great secrets still
to be discovered, but, either way, the government’s handling of censorship on
UFOs has contributed to a widespread belief in the existence of extraterrestrial
beings visiting the Earth. The following is a little- known example of this.
One of the many documents released through the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) twenty years ago was a sizeable collection of reported “green fireball”
incidents. The reports were part of a 209-case catalog collected by the 17th
District, Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) at Kirtland Air Force
Base, New Mexico. The cases run from January 1946 through May 1950, with
the majority running from mid-1949 to the spring of 1950. The catalog describes
the sightings in chart form, giving details of size, shape, color, speed, direction
of travel, etc.
A characteristic of many of the reported incidents in the southwestern U.S.
during this period was the odd green color of many of the streaking objects, thus
giving rise to the term “green fireball.”
Also, upon investigation of incidents by OSI, it was determined that some of
the objects behaved in an anomalous manner. Speeds greater than aircraft but
less than meteors were reported. A persistence of horizontal flight paths
suggested that many objects soared rather than fell. But most interestingly, such
a concentration of large, green fireballs over one state (New Mexico) is difficult
to explain as meteoric activity. Meteors tend to be a random phenomenon,
scattered rocks or metal in space sporadically encountering the Earth. The
exception to this would be the occurrence of meteor showers—when the Earth
passes through the dust paths left by comets in their orbits around or past the
Sun. Showers do not last more than a few hours intensely, or a few days for
encountering the most scattered members of the comet path. And they certainly
don’t aim at individual U.S. states over several years’ time as the green fireballs
seem to have done.
The OSI catalog was released in the late 1970s with minor, but telling,
censorship. Two columns on the chart were entirely deleted: “Reliability of
Observer” and “Evaluation.” The reason? “B5,” meaning that under the FOIA,
insight into decision making processes could be withheld from public view. This
was a way to protect freedom of expression by officials without fear of later
being made accountable for decisions that may or may not have ever been
implemented.

FIXME: missing image

“Reliability of Observer” lists codes “VR,” “R,” and “Unk,” meaning “very
reliable,” “reliable,” and “unknown.” The censorship appears rather pointless
here because while the files that may have accompanied the catalog at one time
identified the witnesses, the selected codes in no way cast a witness in a negative
light. They were either great witnesses, good witnesses, or little was known
about the individual, according to OSI.
Stranger still was the evaluation censorship. The same exemption under FOIA
is used as in the reliability column.

FIXME: missing image

But the selection of conclusions is curious indeed.

FIXME: missing image

“1” is “Green Fireball Phenomena,” “2” is “Disk or Variation,” and “3” is
“Probable Meteor.” Distinguishing “1” from “3” is clear in suggesting that the
green fireballs were not considered to be normal meteors. Moreover, “2”
suggests a flying “Disk,” essentially a flying saucer, or variation (whatever that
means!) as an explanation, meaning that they were not considered as an
explanation for the fireballs either. Considering that explanation #2 must have
been used for at least one of the cases listed (otherwise it would not be an option
at all), it is curious that during the era of Project Grudge—a time when flying
disks, or saucers, officially did not exist—such was being used to explain
unexplained phenomena by Air Force investigators.
The evaluation deletion in the catalog, while literally justified under the “B5”
exemption of the FOIA, did not help the government’s case for dismissing the
UFO phenomena as non-existent. The deletions were applied in the late 1970s,
almost a decade after official investigations were closed down. Revealing those
conclusions would certainly have raised uncomfortable questions about why the
Air Force was explaining a peculiar aerial phenomenon as either a “Green
Fireball Phenomena” or a “Disk or Variation.” The scientists studying the green
fireballs for the government didn’t know what they were, and those studying the
disks or variations didn’t know what those were. But, based upon this catalog,
there was obviously a distinction! That distinction was deemed necessary to veil
long after the Air Force was done with UFOs.
The final entry in the Kirtland catalog was on May 1, 1950, a few months after
the Air Force initiated “Project Twinkle.” “Twinkle” was an effort to catch the
green fireballs in the act, using instrumentation to detect any anomalies. The
effort failed to detect anything useful and Twinkle was shut down in December
1951. In their final report, Twinkle investigators suggested that “earth may be
passing through a region of space of high meteoric population,” a suggestion
offered as a possible explanation for the abundance of high-flying, streaking
objects seen during the UFO wave of 1947.
There are more examples of government officials, more so than UFOlogists,
fostering notions that UFOs were more mysterious than official statements
would lead one to believe in certain instances. Whether or not it is evidence of
extraterrestrials remains debatable. But any historical discussion of the UFO
controversy must credit, or blame, the U.S. government for at least an assist to
ET belief.

Notes

1 Ruppelt files.
2 Ruppelt files.
3 Memoranda involving Moore, passim, FOIA (USAF).
4 Lt. Colonel Willis (for record), memorandum for record, subject: “To prepare a
non-military letter to Mr. Robert B. Sibley for signature of the DI/USAF,” 29
January 1951, FOIA (USAF).
5 Lt. Colonel Willis, memorandum, subject: letter to Sibley, 29 January 1951.
6 Op-322F2-Weekly Briefing Topic, Office of Naval Intelligence, 4 April 1950,
FOIA (USN); see Gross, April-July 1950 supplement, 9-10.
7 Lt. Colonel Willis, memorandum, subject: letter to Sibley, 29 January 1951,
FOIA (USAF).
8 Ruppelt files.
9 Bob Considine, “The Disgraceful Flying Saucer Hoax,” Cosmopolitan,
January 1951: 31, 110-112.
10 Ruppelt, Report.
11 David Saunders and Roger Harkins, UFOs? Yes!, 1968.
12 James McDonald to Robert Low and Richard Hall, 14 March 1967.
13 McDonald to Low and Hall, 14 March 1967.
14 This agrees precisely with what Edward Ruppelt says about the attitudes at
the time (Ruppelt files).
15 Air Technical Intelligence Center, Project Blue Book Report No. 6, 30 April
1952.
16 Ruppelt, Report.
17 Blue Book files microfilm Roll 8.
18 Newspaper article quoted in toto by Gross, 1951 supplement, 15-16, Dayton
(OH) Journal-Herald, 15 February 1951; and Blue Book files, microfilm Roll 8.
19 Article quoted by Gross, 1951 supplement, 15-16, Journal-Herald, 15
February 1951; and Blue Book files, microfilm Roll 8.
20 Blue Book files microfilm Roll 8.
21 Blue Book files microfilm Roll 8.
22 AP news story, “Flying Saucers Not Just Balloons, Says Scientist,” 26
February 1951.
23 Louis Elterman, Project Twinkle Final Report, 27 November 1951.
24 Anthony Mirarchi, interview, Quincy (ME) Patriot Ledger, 27 February 1951.
25 Elterman, Project Twinkle Final Report.
26 Blue Book files (OSI files).
27 Colonel H. J. Kieling (Lt. Colonel Willis) to 1009th Special Weapons
Squadron, subject: Unconventional Aircraft, 5 January 1951, FOIA (USAF).
28 Ruppelt, Report (Note: Ruppelt may have gotten his date on this wrong.
Radiation excursions are recorded, in Blue Book files, for 1950 and 1952).
29 Ruppelt, Report.
30 Urner Liddel to Edward Condon, 30 November 1966.
31 Urner Liddel, “Bogies at Angels 100,” Research Reviews, March 1951.
32 Richard Wilson, “A Nuclear Physicist Exposes Flying Saucers,” Look
Magazine, 27 February 1951.
33 Liddel to Condon, 30 November 1966.
34 Wilson, Look Magazine, 27 February 1951.
35 Ruppelt, Report, and J. J. Kaliszewski, “Oral History Video Interview,” (Tom
Tulien, interviewer for the UFO Oral History Project).
36 Alton Blakeslee, “Flying Saucers Are Explained,” Associated Press news
story, 13 February 1951.
37 Webster quoted in Gross, 1951, from San Jose (CA) Mercury, 14 February
1951.
38 Robert H. Wood, “Saucers, Secrecy, & Security,” Aviation Week, 19
February 1951.
39 United Press news story, dateline: Scituate, MA, 26 February 1951, “Flying
Saucer Radar, Spotter, Posts Are Urged,” and Associated Press news story,
dateline: Scituate, MA, 25 February 1951, “Scientist Raps Saucer Report: AMC
Here Continues Study.”
40 Fred Pillsbury, “Soviet Saucers Spied on Atom Tests, Expert Says,” Quincy
(ME) Patriot Ledger, 27 February 1951.
41 U.P. /A.P. stories, above.
42 U.P. /A.P. stories, above.
43 Pillsbury, “Saucers Spied,” 27 February 1951.
44 Quoted in Gross, 1951, from San Jose (CA) Mercury, 26 February 1951.
45 Colonel Kenneth King, Counter Intelligence Division Office of Special
Investigations to Deputy Chief of Staff, Development, memorandum, subject:
Dr. Anthony O. Mirarchi, former AFCRL Employee—Violation of AFR 205.1, 2
September 1953, FOIA (USAF). Note: this was the finale of a drawn-out
“discussion” between FBI and elements of the Air Force that began April-May
1951, FBI involvement beginning at least by October 1951, and ended here by
General Garland in September 1953.
46 See Robertson (CIA) Panel discussion, later. Oder attended as a CIA
engineer.
47 Ruppelt, Report.
48 Ruppelt, Report.
49 Ruppelt files.
50 H. B. [Darrach] and Robert E. Ginna, “Have We Visitors from Space?” Life
Magazine, 7 April 1952: 80-96.
51 Air Defense Command, Letter 200-1, subject: “Unconventional Aircraft,” 11
April 1951, FOIA (USAF).
52 Colonel Harold E. Watson to Director of Intelligence, 23 April 1951, FOIA
(USAF).
53 Ruppelt files.
54 Colonel John O’Mara, Project Blue Book Staff Study (these are usually
referred to as Project Blue Book Reports), 2 July 1952 (in the Blue Book files
microfilms).
55 Joint Chiefs of Staff (Joint and Allied Communications Publications, JANAP
146B, “Communications Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings
from Aircraft (CIRVIS),” 6 September 1951.
56 FOIA (USAF). There is no single history of the development of the JANAP
regulations towards which to send the reader. The context of the development of
JANAP/CIRM1S, C1RV1S/MER1NT is well known, and the reader can consult
any of the many resources on the post-WW2 need for military intelligence
coordination, which led to the National Security Act, the establishment of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the beginnings of formalized Joint Intelligence
Committees for the bigger picture. The precise creation and utilization of the
first JANAP documents can be read from the USAF FOIA documents.
Unfortunately for citation purposes, these come in one-page-at-a-time doses, and
would require listing several dozen documents at a minimum, including JANAP
146A through JANAP 146E. It is sufficient for current purposes to simply
remark that these USAF FOlAs are mainly 1948 vintage extending up to 1952,
and either directed to General Cabell's office from the USAF Director of
Communications or are internally generated by USAF intelligence itself.
57 Ruppelt files.
58 Colonel Glover, memorandum for record, subject: “Reporting of information
on unidentified flying objects,” 15 October 1951, and Lt. Colonel Eugene Cook
to Air Coordinating Committee, Dept, of Commerce, 26 December 1950, FOIA
(USAF).
59 Joint Chiefs of Staff (Joint and Allied Communications Publications, JANAP
146B, “Communications Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings
from Aircraft (CIRVIS), ” 6 September 1951.
60 Blue Book files (OSI files).
61 The Ft. Monmouth story and its details have three sources: 1. The Blue Book
microfilm (OSI files) as just cited; 2. Edward Ruppelt’s published book
(Ruppelt, Report); and most importantly 3. The Ruppelt files, which contain a
lengthy retelling of this whole business based upon Ruppelt’s direct observation
and his talk with Jerry Cummings about it.
62 Our understanding of ATIC command structure comes from diagrams of that
structure given to UFO historian Michael Hall, while visiting Wright-Patterson
AFB. Reading the Blue Book microfilms and Edward Ruppelt’s materials
confirm their accuracy. The diagram in the text is congruent with the 1951
diagram obtained by Hall.
63 See note 62, as regards these and details above and below.
64 See note 62.
65 See note 62, especially Ruppelt’s file notes.
66 See note 62, especially Ruppelt’s file notes.
67 See note 62, especially Ruppelt’s file notes.
68 Similarly to the above referencing on Ft. Monmouth et al., these Pentagon-
based matters rely on a variety of sources: 1. the USAF FOIA documents,
showing the changes in persons authoring UFO policy letters and memoranda; 2.
Ruppelt’s Report, and 3. Ruppelt’s files, wherein he comments on the UFO
leanings of officers like Porter, Smith, Adams and Fournet.
69 Blue Book files (OSI files).
70 Blue Book files Roll 8.
71 Blue Book files Roll 8.
72 Ruppelt, Report, and J. J. Kaliszewski, “Oral History Video Interview,” (Tom
Tulien, interviewer for the UFO Oral History Project).
73 Ruppelt, Report.
74 Blue Book files Roll 9.
75 Blue Book files (OSI files).
76 The Lubbock Lights case engaged Captain Ruppelt extensively and he has
much to say about it in both his Report and a folder in his files. Blue Book
microfilm also contains extensive material (especially in OSI files). For the
reader seeking a well-written extended essay on the enigma, see Clark’s
Encyclopedia, Volume 2, article: “Lubbock Lights.”
77 Ruppelt, Report, and Ruppelt files.
78 Dr. Ducker to Edward Ruppelt, telegram and letter, Ruppelt files.
79 R. S. Underwood to Air Technical Intelligence Center, 1 June 1952. Note: the
reason that it is suspected that this letter may never have been read is that it (and
much other apparently undealt-with correspondence) was recovered from an
unsorted pile of letters dating from this era. The “rescue” occurred much later in
time when a PhD student was asked whether he wished to take the materials,
rather than have Wright-Patterson just destroy them, as they were being cleaned
out. The other side of this issue, why Ruppelt et al. never got to this and other
letters, seems to be due to the huge upswing of incoming cases that the Project
was faced with in the summer of 1952. Ruppelt admitted that he was swamped
and months behind.
80 The information comes from French UFOlogists, Jimmy Guieu (Flying
Saucers Come From Another World, 1956) and Jacques Vallee (Anatomy of a
Phenomenon, 1965). General Chassin served on the board of at least one civilian
UFO research organization.
81 Barry Greenwood, ed., U.F.O. Historical Revue, #8 (February 2001): 4-7; cf.
[Link]/uhr/[Link]. Reprinted with permission by The Computer
UFO Network.
82 Barry Greenwood, ed., U.F.O. Historical Revue, #4 (April 1999): 4-7; cf.
[Link]/uhr/[Link]. Reprinted with permission by The Computer
UFO Network.

 Chapter 8: Tacking Against the Wind

The year 1952 was a “flap” year with hundreds upon hundreds of reports of
unidentified flying objects. Media coverage was exceptional with an explosion
of news reports. Working only with Air Force records, one historian estimated
that 30,000 different news stories concerning UFOs appeared between April and
September of 1952.1 The phenomenon expressed itself dramatically with two
extended occurrences over Washington, D.C., in July. These incidents involved
not only the Air Force, but the CIA and President Truman as well.
This chapter will describe the changes that occurred in the Pentagon and at
ATIC at this time, and how they affected policy. It will focus on the worrisome
incidents that occurred in the Korean military theatre and the fallout from those
concerns. It will look at the gathering storm of UFO reports that climaxed over
Washington, and the profound shaking of Pentagon thinking that this caused. It
will mention the serious entry of the CIA into these matters, as well as an
alternative UFO study pursued by the Navy. And, a smattering of particularly
significant cases will be presented.
Let us begin with the situation within Air Force Intelligence. Early in the
game, retired Marine Major and civilian writer Donald Keyhoe had surmised
from rumors and conflicting Air Force behavior that a severe split in opinion
existed in the Pentagon over what the saucers were and what to do about them.2
Documents from the Air Force and from Edward Ruppelt confirm that Keyhoe’s
intuition was correct.3 But things were much more fractured than Keyhoe ever
thought. To say that there were “two schools of thought” regarding the UFO
phenomenon widely misses the complexity of the issue.
One school of thought rested with those who believed there was no such thing
as a flying disk. One could conceptualize a faction within this group which felt
that there are no “flying disks,” most of these reports are misidentifications, and
there seem to be hints of a new natural phenomenon involved in a cluster of
them. These people would find “UFOs” non-threatening but intriguing and
worthy of pursuit for scientific reasons. The professionals of the intelligence
community paid no “practical” attention to this view whatsoever— no resources
were to be put into UFO investigation for reasons of science or curiosity. Only
the scientific advisors, people like Hynek and Kaplan, would speak in support of
this position.
A second faction within the “there’s no such thing” group believed that all of
this was caused by human errors. The false reports were due either to the
witness’ lack of knowledge, the limits of visual perception, hoaxes, or even
drunkenness. These reports and the UFO phenomenon itself elicited various
types of reactions by people with this viewpoint. People such as Colonel Porter
and, apparently, Brigadier General Moore in the Pentagon, and Harold Watson,
Roy James, and James Rodgers at AMC/ATIC were needlessly derisive and
outspokenly negative about the issue. At a minimum, they believed that this
business was a waste of time and resources and made the Air Force look foolish.
Other persons were not as scornful of witnesses, even though they believed the
subject was bunk. At AMC, the Grudge report and its authors, George Towles
and Lt. Howard Smith, were in this camp and, for the most part, this was the
stance of the early Pentagon UFO-desk operative Jere Boggs and the arch-
debunker, Donald Menzel, although Menzel could not always contain his
emotions in public. These people simply said: no flying disks, only
understandable misidentifications. Due to possible psychological warfare issues,
it was appropriate to deflate “saucers” not only to save time and resources, but to
maximize national security.
The other school of thought consisted of the people who believed that flying
disk technology was probably real. Within this group there were three theories:
the technology was American; it was Soviet; it was extraterrestrial. After an
initial analysis, almost no one believed that these sightings were caused by U.S.
technology. Occasionally someone outside of Air Force intelligence, such as
Urner Liddel with his balloons or Henry Taylor quoting his unnamed sources,
would float this idea, which Air Force insiders knew was preposterous. That left
the Soviets and ET. It was possible to hypothesize with either or both
possibilities. Early in the game the Collections Area in the Pentagon (George
Garrett and Robert Taylor) went forward in such an open-minded way, as did
Colonel Howard McCoy at AMC. Malcolm Seashore carried a “look for Soviet
influence” document to Europe in the fall of 1947, and most of Jere Boggs’
policy writing, including the famous “AIR-100” study, is written with concern
that the sightings could be of Soviet origin. Almost everyone involved in the
Green Fireballs study (Mirarchi, LaPaz, Rees et al.) were concerned about Soviet
mischief, and the Far-Eastern Air Force prodded the Pentagon more than once
about their encounters.
 Lastly within the “flying saucers are real” group were persons who appear to
have believed fairly strongly that the disks were extraterrestrial (ET). This
faction included not only the famous SIGN engineers, but highly-placed
Pentagon personnel such as Weldon Smith, William Adams, Dewey Fournet, and
possibly General William Garland.4
The operational gap between “it’s all a waste of time/get rid of it!” vs. “stay
very vigilant, it might be Soviet!” is about as wide as one can get. Throw in the
confusion of “UFOs = ET” as a possibility with its own range of possible
responses, and the Air Force has a complex issue to address. Viewed in this way,
the correct stance should have been “Stay vigilant with an open mind, and
pursue no agenda except national security.” That is precisely the stance that
General Cabell ultimately took. It is the behavior indicated by Colonel Frank
Dunn, Lt. Jerry Cummings, and, in the end, new chief of intelligence, General
John Samford. Edward Ruppelt’s behavior also fits the mode of, “whatever I
believe isn’t important… I have a job to do.”
At the end of 1951 and into 1952, the atmosphere in the Pentagon and at the
ATIC was not of this objective, down-the-centerline style. The Pentagon and
ATIC both leaned towards the ET hypothesis. General Cabell’s replacement,
General Samford, was like him, open-minded and concerned with national
security. But Samford’s main aide, General Garland, had seen a UFO himself,
and unlike Cabell aides like John Schweizer, was UFO enthusiastic. Fournet had
replaced Boggs; an almost 180° turn of opinion in favor of the ET hypothesis
(ETH). Foumet’s bosses, Adams and Smith, both felt that the ETH was a real
possibility. Porter, who was derisive towards the entire subject, was essentially
silenced. Another key Samford advisor, Stefan Possony of Georgetown (who
worked right out of Samford’s office), initially was concerned that UFOs were
Soviet devices. By mid-year, he became an open-minded prober of the ETH.5
Even the Public Information Officer changed to the E.T.-enthusiastic Al Chop.
At Wright-Patterson, Watson was out, replaced by Dunn and then Garland
himself. Rodgers and James were shunted to the side for Cummings and then
Ruppelt. This was a massive change in the philosophical approach by the major
figures involved with UFO investigation and policy. Shown is the array of
officers who changed from late in the Grudge Project to early Blue Book. The
changes in command move vertically from top to bottom. Below the names are
the roles occupied by those individuals.

FIXME: missing image

The main ingredient of change in all this had to be General Samford’s chief
aide, General William Garland. Whether Garland thought that there was any
chance that UFOs were of an extraterrestrial origin is not known. What Garland
brought to this new environment was that he thought the UFO issue was
important—very important. As stated earlier, Garland had seen a UFO himself.
As far as he was concerned, the debate about their reality was over. His logical
deduction was that they were Soviet and very dangerous. He seems to have been
quite fixated by this, and on January 3, 1952, wrote a stunningly strong and clear
memorandum to Samford that laid down the investigative shortcomings of the
Grudge Project and suggested investigative policies and agendas for the
immediate future.6 Since Garland and Samford had to be communicating with
each other all the time, this memo likely reflected information that Garland had
presented to Samford at a much earlier time. The memorandum is so illustrative
of the concerns at that moment in time by the Air Force Intelligence leaders that
it needs to be printed here in text so that the reader can appreciate it. The
memorandum is displayed on the next two pages.

AFOIN-A
MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL SAMFORD
SUBJECT: (SECRET) Contemplated Action to Determine the Nature and Origin
of the Phenomena Connected with the Reports of Unusual Flying Objects

1. The continued reports of unusual flying objects requires positive action
to determine the nature and origin of this phenomena. The action taken thus far
has been designed to track down and evaluate reports from casual observers
throughout the country. Thus far, this action has produced results of doubtful
value and the inconsistencies inherent in the nature of the reports has given
neither positive nor negative proof of the claims.
 2. It is logical to relate the reported sightings to the known development of
aircraft, jet propulsion, rockets and range extension capabilities in Germany and
the U.S.S.R. In this connection, it is to be noted that certain developments by the
Gerrans, particularly the Horton wing, jet propulsion, and refueling, combined
with their extensive employment of V-1 and V-2 weapons during World War II,
lend credence to the possibility that the flying objects may be of German and
Russian origin. The developments mentioned above were completed and
operational between 1941 and 1944 and subsequently fell into the hards of the
Soviets at the end of the war. There is evidence that the Germans were working
on these projects as far back as 1931 to 1938. Therefore, it may be assumed that
the Germans had at least a 7 to 10 year lead over the United States in the
development of rockets, jet engines, and aircraft of the Horton-wing design. The
Air Corps developed refueling experimentally as early as 1928, but did not
develop operational capability until 1948.
3. In view of the above facts and the persistent reports of unusual flying
objects over parts of the United States, particularly the east and west coast and in
the vicinity of the atomic energy production and tasting facilities, it is apparent
that positive action must be taken to determine the nature of the objects and, if
possible, their origin. Since it is known fact that the Soviets did not detonate an
atomic bomb prior to 19h9, it is believed possible that the Soviets may have
developed the German aircraft designs at an accelerated rate in order to have a
suitable carrier for the delivery of weapons of mass . destruction. In other words,
the Soviets may have a carrier without the weapons required while we have
relatively superior weapons with relatively inferior carriers available. If the
Soviets should £et the carrier and the weapon, combined with adequate
defensive aircraft, they might surpass us technologically for a sufficient period
of time to permit them to execute a decisive air campaign against the United
States and her allies. The basic philosophy of the Soviets has been to surpass the
western powers technologically and the Germans have given them the
opportunity.
4. In view of the facts outlined above, it is considered mandatory that the
Air Force take positive action at once to definitely determine the nature and, if
possible, the origin of the reported unusual flying objects. The following action
is now contemplated:
a. to require ATIC to provide at least three teams to be matched up with an
equal number of teams from ADC for the purpose of taking radar scope
photographs and visual photographs of the phenomena;
b. to select sites for these teams, based on the concentrations of already
reported sightings over the United States (these areas are, generally, the Seattle
area, the Albuquerque area, and the New York-Philadelphia area) and
c. to take the initial steps in this project during early January 1952.

W. M. Garland
Brigadier General, USAF
Assistant for Production
Directorate of Intelligence

Shortly after this memo, Edward Ruppelt was asked to come to Washington to
brief the Pentagon on UFOs. He and his colleagues at ATIC had been busy. They
had created master maps of sightings that would illustrate areas of UFO
concentration. They found plenty. Ruppelt reported that the data showed
incidents concentrated around White Sands and Los Alamos/Sandia in New
Mexico, Camp Hood in Texas (an area with many reports of green fireballs),
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, and two areas of Ohio—one being
Dayton, Wright-Patterson’s hometown.7 Ruppelt noted that the maps were made
with crude data, but regardless, the areas listed as concentration zones could not
have done anything but rattle the Pentagon.
Ruppelt returned to ATIC and began composing a Status Report (#3) for the new
project Grudge.8 Shortly thereafter, he was called back to the Pentagon by
Garland for another briefing. Since his latest status report was published two
days after the briefing of January 29, Ruppelt must have told Garland exactly
what was already in the report. Ruppelt reviewed the geographical list of UFO
concentrations, stated the project’s obstacles, lobbied for new approaches (with
which Garland seems to have already agreed), and included a list of 15 incidents
reported to ATIC in the month of January. Those cases included UFO sightings
that had happened earlier, such as Lubbock, two General Mills cases, an Oak
Ridge incident, etc. Ten of the fifteen cases were by General Mills scientists or
military personnel, mostly pilots. For only one instance did Ruppelt believe that
he had an identification at the time.
Between these insider activities at the end of January and more such briefings
and policy debates in March and April, a real publicity problem occurred
concerning UFOs in the airspace of Korea during the Korean War. This was, of
course, the worst possible choice of an area of the world to have UFOs show up,
due to constant media coverage of that War.9
Late at night on January 29, in the vicinity of Wonsan, Korea, a B-29 crew
observed an object described as both an orange-colored disk and sphere that also
projected a bluish tint at times. It was slightly fuzzy-edged. The crew thought
that it was quite small, although there was no way for them to estimate that
correctly. The object flew parallel to the B-29, then closed in, and then departed.
Shortly thereafter, another B-29 crew observed the same or a similar object. Both
sightings were at just over 22,000 feet. The witnesses were all military veterans
and the B-29s were from different squadrons. The two crews were interrogated
separately.
As per policy, the Far Eastern Air Force (FEAF) command sent the reports to
Pentagon Intelligence. The reports were passed on promptly to Ruppelt at ATIC
as well. The case was creating a stir in the Pentagon, and Dewey Fournet
received word that General Garland would soon quiz him on the incident. He
wrote to Ruppelt on February 8, asking for ATIC’s help. Ruppelt was already
involved in the case and had requested details from FEAF about a week earlier.
When these interrogations arrived, he brought in an expert from Wright-
Patterson’s Engineering Division, Peter A. Stranges of the Propulsion Branch
Power Plant Group, to help with the analysis. Here are the conclusions:10

The times that the object or objects followed the B-29s indicate that the
objects were propelled by some means, which eliminated the possibility of
an unguided ground-to-air missile, drop missiles, etc.... The color and
shape of the flame could have been the exhaust of a conventional jet
engine with or without an afterburner, a pulse-jet, ram-jet, or rocket
engine. None of these possibilities were considered to be applicable.

The report is somewhat similar to the reports of "fireball-fighters," a type
 of phenomena observed in Europe during World War II. The exact nature
of this phenomena was never determined but bomber crews reported large
fiery balls, similar to the sun, passing through or near their formations.
There is no documented evidence or data available on this phenomena,
and all the information that has been obtained is verbal from WW II
bomber crewmen, consequently, few actual facts are available.

This is the information that Ruppelt would have passed on to Foumet and
Garland. Ruppelt passed the B-29 report on immediately. This guess is based
upon the urgency from Fournet and the fact that we do have a formal ATIC
memorandum by Ruppelt from the 18th of February that referred to all of this.
The importance of the timing is that the next day someone in the Pentagon
decided to violate all past policy on UFO case information and leak this incident
to the public.
How and why this happened is mysterious. The information came apparently
anonymously via what was described in a Pentagon document as a press
release.11 Dewey Foumet tended not to support public information releases on
the subject, so the release of information came from someone above him.
Someone in the Pentagon itself thought that releasing this story was a good idea.
Was it Garland himself? With his fear of Soviet mischief, did he attempt to
increase pressure to make this subject be taken more seriously? We will probably
never know the answer to that. FEAF officials, when asked by the press about
the incidents, replied that they had no comment since such matters were
classified. At least they understood the policy.
The result of this press release was that the Pentagon public information desk
and Edward Ruppelt at ATIC were swamped by requests for more information.
Ruppelt said that, for a while, he was badgered daily by Washington big-wigs.12
The chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Richard Russell of
Georgia, immediately wrote the Secretary of the Air Force, Thomas Finletter,
about the reports. Colonels J. G. Eriksen and H. J. Kieling took the next two
weeks to prepare a proper reply.13
Kieling-Eriksen tried to ease concerns by referring to jet exhausts and
searchlights (neither of which had been concluded as feasible by ATIC—a fact
not mentioned to the Senator). Although the occasional news writer praised the
Air Force for its movement towards opening up the information to the public, all
the coverage was not that complimentary. An example of something that may
have been problematical was a column by a pair of very famous and politically
involved writers, Joseph and Stewart Alsop.
The Alsops’ column, “Problems of Scientific Development,” was extremely
detailed on the facts of the two incidents. They then wrote: “when queried about
them, the highest sources in the Air Force have replied that ‘there is no doubt
about the facts but the Air Force still does not believe in flying disks.’”14 The
Alsops then got to the point of their article:

Whether as hoax, or as illusion, or as intimation of something unpleasant
to come, the facts nonetheless seem worth recording to these reporters,
simply because they are symbols of the opening of the Pandora's box of
science. Here is a tale, in source at least not laughable but close to
laughable in substance, which is not being laughed off. In fact, it is the
subject of anxious enquiry at high levels.

The plain truth is that this now-opened Pandora's box of science may
contain almost any kind of disagreeable surprise; and thus the experts can
no longer say with assurance, "This is silly, that makes sense." The further
truth is that the Korean experience has convinced American experts of our
earlier folly in underestimating Soviet technical capabilities.

Much more solid evidence than the two queer intelligence reports from the
B-29 crews continues to pile up. More recently, for example, information
has come in of Russian production of a genuinely supersonic jet fighter, the
MIG-19. The raised estimates of a Soviet atomic output are in the same
category.

The Alsops were part of a group of Washington-based intelligence and media
figures that might be described as hyper-patriots. They believed that it was
justified to use (read: manipulate) the press in the service of national security.15
Joseph was a member of the WWII Office of Strategic Service (OSS), a
precursor to the CIA, and he cooperated with CIA missions later. It could be that
emphasizing the possibility of Soviet-German technology in the Korean War
Zone was viewed as of some value vis-a- vis public concerns and consequent
congressional funding. The closeness of the Air Force to the CIA in those early
years is very well known. Air Force Chief of Staff Yandenberg was a former
director of the CIA’s predecessor, the Central Intelligence Group. Charles Cabell
became the Deputy CIA Director and had hand-in-glove interactions on all the
spy balloons, spy planes, and soon-to-be spy satellite projects. What actually
happened here with the Korean case release is unknown. It was out of the norm,
in direct opposition to written policy, and perhaps explainable by either political
or funding agendas. It caused the Air Force some publicity problems, and it
hinted at a complex intelligence community that operated in a variety of
different directions, which makes our understanding of their handling of the
UFO phenomenon more difficult.
The Korean case press release did not cause an upturn in instances reported to
the ATIC, but did serve as a catalyst for a consistent build-up of press interest
and coverage for several months.16 Because of the Korean incidents, and several
others, Pentagon authorities wanted to remove all the negative stigma from the
UFO project and insisted that the name “Grudge” be changed. The project was re
named “Blue Book” after the blank-paged examination booklets that Edward
Ruppelt used in his college days at Iowa State University. An open-minded
examination: that’s what Cabell had wanted, and now Garland after him.
Open-minded, yes. Open book, no. A query came to Major Foumet’s desk that
requested liberalizing the policy of information release in the form of
declassifying and making available Eltermen’s final report on Twinkle and the
Green Fireballs. The report was wholly negative towards the phenomenon being
a type of technology. One can understand that its release would be viewed as
relaxing the public, who might easily connect fireballs over Korea with fireballs
over Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. However, Fournet said no, and the report
remained classified. This was in mid-March.17
By the end of March, the combination of increased public badgering,
increased public coverage and, most importantly, positive pressure from the
Pentagon to increase information gathering and analysis, took its toll. ATIC
Chief Frank Dunn wrote Garland that it would help greatly if they could
declassify the entire project.18 This would help him and Ruppelt more easily to
engage non-military personnel such as civilian pilots in the gathering of data. By
keeping case investigations of that sort “open,” Dunn felt that more could be
accomplished. That was a little too much openness even for Garland’s view, and
a compromise was made. The project was not declassified and thrown open, but
certain case investigations were to be classified at the relatively low level of
“Restricted,” which made interaction between investigators and civilian
observers more free-flowing.
The Korean news release, the visits of Life and Look correspondents to ATIC,
and the softening attitude towards the release of UFO information, gave news
writers and citizens alike the idea that they could just write the Pentagon and
ATIC about anything they wanted and expect to get an answer. Allegedly, some
in the Pentagon such as Colonels Smith and Adams thought that this was a good
final goal. Others severely differed. In mid-April, Major Foumet got an elaborate
letter from a writer of the Baltimore Evening Sun, asking all manner of
questions. Colonel Adams wanted Fournet to respond to all of them. The writer
wanted to know everything: cases, concentrations, procedures, chain-of-
command, relation to atomic energy, and so on.19
Fournet answered the letter as ordered—two and a half single-spaced pages, as
vague as he could be on some questions, while still attempting to be convincing.
He gave a flat “no” to atomic power and extraterrestrials. He reminded the
civilian that much of the requested information regarding procedure and specific
detail was classified. He said that hoaxes occasionally occur, such as bogus
photographs, and that nothing they had ever found pointed to any “startling
possibilities.” At least he ended the letter with an elaborate and generally truthful
statement of Air Force philosophy:20

Present USAF philosophy on this subject is essentially as follows:
On incidents which have not been reasonably explained as known objects,
Headquarters USAF does not speculate as to what they may be. In many
"unexplained" cases there is probably a logical explanation which USAF
Intelligence has not been able to reach because of insufficient basic data.
Obviously the percentage of incidents in this category is indeterminate,
and it is therefore impossible to say whether they could account for a large
proportion of the unexplained cases. The policy of the USAF in revealing
information on this subject to the public is to avoid completely the
insertion of a "scare element" based on speculation. This is accomplished
by announcing only facts and factual analysis. Since, over the course of
 the past five years, nothing detrimental to our national security has
materialized from these incidents, the only reasonable conclusion is that
they cannot yet be considered as direct threats to the U.S. or its citizens. It
is also desired that the American public be aware of USAF attitude in this
matter, viz., it is not considered a joke or something which can be brushed
off lightly as readily explainable, but rather it is considered to be
something which warrants constant vigilance and thorough Intelligence
analysis in an attempt to provide a satisfactory solution. In this connection
it is to be noted that the USAF does not allow itself to be stampeded into
finding satisfactory explanations. Only after all available facts have been
determined through thorough investigation and these facts are carefully
analyzed to the point of establishing an identification beyond any
reasonable doubt is an explanation arrived at and announced.

Foumet is to be applauded for this description of the Air Force’s service. He
leaves out only its unsatisfactory past record and the very high level of tension
some of this had produced. He projects a fine level of concern along with
competence and security. On the other hand, Edward Ruppelt was not doing so
well with his public tone. While he was basically an honest, open man, Ruppelt’s
interactions with the press were felt to be a little too newsy for Pentagon nerves.
According to Ruppelt, the Pentagon advised him to shut up, or at least to be
more selective with his commentary.21
Although the growing flood of news articles increased the rate of requests
for information, the Project did not notice any relationship with the number of
UFO reports that it received. Reports in April were up dramatically, but they
were almost entirely from within the military.22 As 1952 moved towards the
summer, the bothersome trend of unidentified encounters near bases and critical
facilities continued. Here are a few of them.
May 2, George AFB, California:23 The director of personnel for the 146th
Fighter-Bomber Wing watched five circular white objects fly over the base.
They did not seem to be metallic because there was no reflection from the Sun,
and they moved silently with no exhaust. The objects’ diameter seemed to be
about the length of a P51 aircraft, and their velocity was about twice that of a jet.
They were highly maneuverable, made quick movements ending in a sudden
right turn, and moved rapidly away. The colonel was stunned by this and
checked weather (there was almost no wind aloft), balloon launches (none
known, but with no wind they could not have had the reported speed anyway),
and active aircraft (there was one small plane in the entire area). He immediately
reported to the Pentagon, which called ATIC in to investigate. Ruppelt left for
George AFB and interviewed the colonel and rechecked everything. He flew
back to Dayton and filed “unidentified” on the record sheet.24
As soon as Ruppelt returned to his office, Colonel Dunn told him to cancel his
date with his wife, whom he had barely seen in two weeks, and fly to
Washington, DC. There, he interviewed a high- ranking CIA member, who, with
several other prominent people, had witnessed a UFO at a garden party there.
This somewhat mysterious incident is described in Ruppelt’s book.25 It is
mentioned because it demonstrates the heavy workload that Ruppelt handled.
Public reports of UFOs were widespread and included witnesses in the CIA.
May 10, Savannah River Atomic Plant near Ellenton, South Carolina:26 Four
employees of DuPont Corporation saw four objects described as small disks
flying over the plant to the north. They seemed to be yellow-gold, silent, and
they moved at high altitude and high velocity. Shortly thereafter, two similar
objects crossed the sky in generally the same path. Then, one object passed
silently over the plant at a much lower altitude (only “tank high”), but moving
southwest instead of to the north. Finally, another single object flew over to the
north, once again at high altitude. This was reported to officials and investigated
by the FBI. The FBI sent their report on to the Pentagon and the Atomic Energy
Commission. Needless to say, no one could explain what the four employees had
seen, and, given the location, the authorities were concerned. The same day, at
another restricted area, Kirtland AFB, near Albuquerque and Los Alamos, an Air
Force colonel and his wife observed and reported two silvery disks flying over
the area, and flipping (turning on their axes) as they did.27
May 29, Edwards AFB, California:28 Two silvery metallic disks flew in close
formation and moved in an arc past the base. They made no exhaust, nor sound.
The four witnesses were all high technology people: a mechanical engineer who
worked in aeronautics, an Air Force test mechanic, an aeronautical
instrumentation engineer, and a Caltech laboratory employee. The quality of the
witnesses attracted the Air Force investigators’ attention. Three days later on
June 1, engineers working at a Hughes Aircraft Radar Instrumentation facility
noticed an odd radar blip that indicated an object traveling at 180 mph at about
11,000 feet. Radar showed the object’s speed triple to about 550 mph as it
accelerated straight upwards. The object then leveled off at a great height and
plunged downwards at a great speed. It leveled off again at 55,000 feet and flew
horizontally until out of radar range.
The engineers contacted Edwards AFB since it was the only place in the
vicinity that could conceivably fly anything like this, and they were told that
nothing they had was in the air at the time. ATIC and Ruppelt got involved. The
Hughes engineers had checked their equipment and considered the possibility of
strange atmospheric effects—no explanations in either area. If Edwards AFB had
nothing flying that day that could perform this way, then Blue Book was left
with another unknown. Ruppelt said he then checked his card file for “High
Speed Climb” and found that there must have been at least a hundred cards of
different incidents.
Because of incidents such as the above, Project Blue Book had grown to
include Ruppelt plus four Lieutenants, two airmen, and two civilians, one of
whom was probably Dr. J. Allen Hynek as an astronomical consultant.29
Ruppelt received so many requests for press briefings that not only did it
interfere with his job, but his responses resulted in too many gaffs and caused
certain colonels in the Pentagon to call Frank Dunn and ask “why did he say
that?!” The solution? Ruppelt was to direct such inquiries to A1 Chop’s press
desk at the Pentagon, to everyone’s relief. Such cases were also grounds for the
growth of ideas in the Pentagon such as stripping down jets to act as interceptors
at bases all around the States. Ruppelt said that no one was laughing. The plan
was not enacted due to its expense and the need for so many planes for adequate
coverage.30
30 July 2, Tremonton, Utah:31 A Navy photography specialist and his wife
saw what seemed to be a “fleet” or a “flock” of fast- moving objects. Chief Petty
Officer Delbert Newhouse quickly readied his camera and began filming. He
obtained a few dozen feet of motion picture photography of these objects in their
odd, seemingly rapid, milling movements. He thought that the objects were
clearly disks, not birds. And around that hypothesis began quite a controversy.
This is one of the many instances w