A Thesis Submitted to the Air and Staff College of
Air University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for Graduation - June 1968



October 16, 1992 

50 LeMay Plaza South
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6334

Mr. Dale Goudie
[address deleted by CUFONSM]
Seattle  WA  98xxx


This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act request of September 14, 1992, for a copy of the "Thesis Submitted to the Air Command and Staff College of Air University ..." entitled "The UFO Problem: Time for a Reassessment" by J. King, Major, USAF, dated June 1968.

The requested document is releasable and a copy is attached.  There is no charge for the document.


/s/ Lucy P. McInnis

LUCY P. McINNIS                                        1 Atch
Chief, Records Management Division                Copy of Thesis
Directorate of Information Management



Strength Through Knowledge





John R. King, FR 47113, 1930-
Major, USAF


A Thesis Submitted to the Air and Staff College of
Air University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for Graduation

June 1968

Thesis directed by Dale E. Downing, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF
No. 0670-68





    The debate centered around whether or not UFOs are extraterrestrial space vehicles, or whether they exist at all, has raged for many years.  During the course of the debate the United States Air Force, official government agency responsible for UFO report evaluation, has been subjected to severe criticism for the manner in which it has handled this problem.  This paper presents the positions of the critics, outlined the Air Force response and general approach to the subject and concludes that the Air Force has performed ineptly. Recommendations are made for the future conduct of UFO investigations.




    Anyone attempting a discussion of the UFO problem must present his scientific/technological credentials to the reader.   Failure to present some assurance that things scientific and technological are not totally beyond the comprehension of the writer exposes the writer to possible dismissal as untrained and/or unreliable.

    The writer of this paper presents the following:

Occupation:  Active duty Air Force officer with over fourteen years service.

Academic Experience: Scientific. Chemistry, Biology, Botany, mathematics. Baccalaureate degree in Geology, University of Cincinnati, 1953.  Member, Sigma Gamma Epsilon national geology honorary fraternity.

Civilian Experience:  Soils technician, The H. C. Nutting Company, General Engineering Testing, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Air Force Experience:  Technical officer. Communications-cs operation, maintenance.  Radar site selection.  Project Officer, Minuteman System program Office, in charge of development and acquisition of minuteman II Ground Electronics System (Launch Control and Status Monitoring System - digital data).





ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    ii

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   iii


I.  INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

          The Psychology of the Times
          The Antagonists and the Bewildered
          Formalities of the Approach to the Subject
          The Plan


          The Ultra Group (Hostile)
          The Ultra Group (Benevolent)
          The Normal Believers
          The Converts
          The Neutrals
          The Non-Believers

III.  THE AIR FORCE AND UFOS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51

          Past Performance
          The Current Situation

IV.  THE IMPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   77


    V.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .  91

FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  95

APPENDIX A  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  101

APPENDIX B  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  106

APPENDIX C  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  109

APPENDIX D  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  111

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127




The Psychology of the Times

    We have not yet arrived at the point in our culture where it is in vogue to believe in flying saucers.  On the contrary, if one suggests that these machines might exist, and that we need to look at the problem objectively, he frequently meets with a not so subtle change in the topic of conversation.  Why is this so?

    Within the last twenty years, Man has discovered that through his conscious efforts he can improve his material lot in marvelous ways.  He no longer waits for accidental discoveries to take place.  Rather, he actively searches out answers in the physical sciences and converts these discoveries into tangible and practical material things for the good of humanity.  The general advancement of what is known as technology is attributed to scientists, to the scientific method, and to the pragmatism of the laboratory.  The accomplishments in technology have been so impressive that scientists and things scientific have assumed an aura almost of infallibility.



    We are living in a pragmatic society.  However, one detects a curious thing about all this objectivity.  There has been built up almost a cult of allegiance to, and unquestioned confidence in, the scientist of today.  The high priests are the coldly objective scientists, who "prove" truth and falsity in mathematical formulae and in laboratory demonstration.  Their ability to do this in many areas has been quite convincing.  This success has in large measure been responsible for the commonly heard statements, "It's not scientific," or, "Science has proven that...etc."  Science is looked upon as the authority.  However, people forget that some of the misconceptions of mankind have been shared with, or even caused by, the scientists of the times.  The concept of the flat Earth and the concept of the Earth as the center of the universe were concepts commonly held by the scientists and people of the times.  We today hold different views about the nature of the Earth.   Hopefully we are closer to the truth.  It must be remembered that every succeeding generation has modified the scientific "truths" of past generations.  No generation should be so brash as to think that it has once and for all determined the ultimate in scientific truth.



    Man continues to be egocentric and arrogant about his status in the universe.  he has a tendency to become resentful and confused when he is confronted with a problem which he feels may be beyond his capacity.  Scientists have developed what is known as the scientific method.  This approach to a problem includes as one of its precepts testing of hypotheses.  This testing places emphasis on demonstrations perceivable to the five obvious senses.  The scientific community until recently has looked askance at any attempt to include additional senses to the human inventory.   Science has been using the five senses as the intellectual base for supporting or refuting hypotheses.  the scientific method has been sacrosanct.  To challenge its adequacy has been heretical.  Then along came things like psychic phenomena: clairvoyance, clairaudience, precognition, apportation, psychic surgery.  In some scientific circles this must have been traumatic.  Psychic attributes are not included in the five standard senses.  Immediately some scientists set about to prove that demonstrations of psychic powers were either fraudulent or could be explained in terms of the five senses.  Others refused to discuss the topic at all.  Some of the open-minded scientists started to do what



True objectivity demands: investigate, on the assumption that these powers may in fact exist, and may warrant a change in the established order of things.  Out-of-hand rejection based on ignorance appears to be more human than scientific.  These scientists who decided that psychic phenomena deserved investigation have been subjected to the scoffings and ridicule of the "stable" scientific community to the extent that much investigation has had to be conducted clandestinely and anonymously to preserve scientific reputation.  Today, investigations into psychic phenomena do not carry the paralyzing stigma of the past, but the existence of psychic senses is still not universally accepted.

    The writer's point is that objectivity may be subject to various definitions, depending on how closely this objectivity conforms to the norms of the times.  It appears to be much easier to be objective about any given "fact" or theory if the "fact" or theory fits neatly into the body of information currently accepted as valid.  A "fact" or theory which fits may be taken almost as prima facie proof of itself.  On the other hand, if some piece of information turns up which runs counter to current thought, which is unscientific, or which shakes the egocentricity of the scientific community or Man himself, then that piece of information or theory meets



with particular non-objectivity.  man finds it extremely difficult to accept or even to objectively investigate anything which threatens to shatter his emotional equanimity or his high regard for himself.

         The Antagonists and the Bewildered

    It is not at all surprising that the UFO debate has frequently become charged with emotion.  It contains within it many of the characteristics of the Earth-as-the-center-of-the-universe debate; it is probably viewed by some in the scientific community as a threat to their reputation of near-omniscience; it carries implications of the highest import to Man's status and future.  The idea of the existence of UFOs ( and the corollary that they are operated by intelligent beings who are extraterrestrial) is emotionally difficult for Man to contemplate.  A large section of society probably wishes that the problem would go away.  The writer feels that, at least subconsciously, this wishful thinking has pervaded what is claimed to be an objective investigation.  Currently the debate is concentrated on what constitutes valid proof and evidence.  The non-believers insist on physical, "scientific" proof and evidence.  they are adamant.  The believers maintain that there is already ample evidence, which should be



accepted by the non-believers.  But among the believers are those who have taken up positions so far away from the norm that they have earned nothing but the scorn and ridicule of the non-believers.  These believers have served the non-believers well, because it is in the far out literature that monsters, little green men and ray guns appear, and the non-believers can point to this literature as they make their sweeping statements about the mental condition of believers.  And so the debate rages.

     Formalities of the Approach to the Subject

    The Problem: To investigate the bases for the opposing positions taken in the existence of extraterrestrial unidentified flying objects in order to determine the validity of the predominantly negatively oriented position of the U.S. Air Force.

    The Major Objective: To determine the advisability of a modification in the Air Force's public relations approach to the subject of UFOs.

    The Specific Objectives:

        - To identify the various camps which are studying the UFO problem and to characterize 
            their attitudes and consider their arguments.



        - To weigh the divergent positions.
        - To assess the political, sociological and military implications contained in the UFO 
        - To analyze the advisability of the current Air Force approach to the UFO problem in
           view of the implications.

    Research Limitations: Research will be limited to source materials available in the Montgomery, Alabama, area, with the possible exception of written or telephonic contact with Air Force Project Blue Book personnel and special project personnel at the University of Colorado.

       That: -

             - The Air Force will not modify its approach to the problem prior to the completion of this
             - Physical evidence of the type acceptable to the Air Force will not be received prior to the
                completion of this paper.
             - Cognizance over UFO matters will not be removed from the Department of the Air



The Plan

    In succeeding chapters the author will review the various schools of thought of the believers, will present their respective stands, and will present the types of evidence offered by each school.  He will also present the position of the non-believers and of the U.S. Air Force.  An analysis will be made of the opposing and noncommittal positions, with an attempt to present the salient points of each position.  In the closing chapters, some of the debate will be explored, and certain conclusions drawn and recommendations made for consideration by the Air Force.





                  The Arena

    In the UFO debate there are many shades of opinion, from the ultra-liberal to the ultra-conservative, with a graduation of opinion between these two extremes.  As is usual in a debate with high emotional content, and on a subject with such profound implications, the most vociferous are to be found at the extremes, with the middle ground pleading for objectivity on the one hand and open-mindedness on the other.

    Diagrammatically, the position spectrum might be depicted as follows.  The diagram indicates the names of the principal spokesmen for the respective positions.  There is no absolute line of demarcation between the contiguous positions of the believers.  However, there are in each group certain rather clearly identifiable central traits which do not appear as major traits in the other groups.  These key characteristics have been used by the author as the basis for the position spectrum.



The Position Spectrum

-------------- The Family of Believers ---------------



Ultra group
Ultra group

Barker,G. Adamsky,G. Aime', M.    (USAF) - - - - USAF - - - - USAF   
Edwards, F. Bethurum, T. Girvan, W. Hynek, J. Fuller, J. Airman mag.
Kent, M. Fry, G. Hall, R. Ruppelt, E. Jung, C. Menzel, D.
Steiger, R.
Leslie, D.
Keyhoe, D.
Look mag.
Blue Book
Williamson, G. Lorenzen, C. Quintanilla Tacker, L.
Skully, F. Simon, B. Von Braun,W.
Vallee, J. Sagan, C.
Young, M. Time mag.
    University - -
- - University  

CUFONSM NOTE: Dashes for USAF, Qunintanilla/Project Blue Book and University of  Colorado indicates that the position is either not clear or tends to vacillate

CUFONSM NOTE: original has dashed line between "Qunintanilla" and "Project  Blue Book."
Original diagram is turned 90 degrees.



The Family of Believers

    Although there are differences of opinion in some areas, all groups in the family of believers have certain characteristics in common.  Among these are:

   - A belief in the existence of UFOs as extraterrestrially originating space vehicles controlled by
       intelligent beings.
   - Enthusiasm and active attempts through personal contacts and published material to persuade 
       the populace that UFOs do exist.
   - A general contempt towards the investigative effort of the USAF and towards its official
       pronouncements and findings.  This contempt of the USAF effort is the most important single
       unifying factor within the camp of the believers and presents itself to the Air Force as a common

    The Ultra Group (Hostile).  Although this group is smaller than the group which believes that space visitors are benevolent, the members of this group will nevertheless be heard.  The literature of this group contains claims of hostile actions by space beings.  Hostility in this context includes instances of death and injury supposedly related to UFO appearances, abductions, the appearance of monster-like beings, reconnaissance of



defense installations, harassment of aircraft and automobiles, power blackouts, imminent invasion of the world and other happenings which purportedly take place because of the basic hostility of the space beings towards Man. [1]  It is this group which publishes the sensational, alarmist material so often seen at the news stands.  The emphasis is on the threat to mankind.  It is claimed that the space beings have mastered space travel and are using this knowledge to menace the Earth.  the inference is that the space beings are sub-humans who are morally and spiritually degenerate.

    Usually the books of this group are of the paperback type and deal with only one or two alleged incidents of hostile action on the part of space beings.  The writing is usually not of the highest caliber, and the depth of thought and of analysis leaves much to be desired.  In addition, care is usually taken by the authors to conceal the identity of the person or persons involved. [2]  This prevents any reader from pursuing independent investigation.  While this prevents a reader from confirming the story, it likewise protects the author from exposure.  Because of the sensationalism, the concealment of the identity of the principals involved, the shallow treatment of the subject and the general alarmist approach, the credibility and qualifications of the authors is subject to question.



One suspects commercial motives in the bulk of this type of literature.

   Nevertheless, one does find a few works which are serious attempts to warn of the malevolent nature of at least some of the space beings. [3]  In any serious investigation of a problem all factors and approaches should be considered.  For this reason, claims of hostile actions must be considered and not rejected out of hand.

   What are hostile actions?  For the purpose of this paper, hostile actions are defined as actions which result in the death or injury of human beings and actions which disrupt the normal flow of human activity in a manner antagonistic to human interests.  There are in the literature many examples of hostile actions on the part of space beings: death of two South American technologists, [4] death of Capt. Mantell (USAF), [5] disappearance of U.S. aircraft, [6] injury to a scout master in Florida, [7] abduction of a South American farmer, [8] abduction of Mr. and Mrs. Barney Hill, [9] the appearance of a monster-like being in Virginia, [10] reconnaissance of defense installations, [11] harassment of aircraft and automobiles, [12] power blackouts [13] and actions which purportedly indicate preparations for an invasion of the Earth. [14]



    Members of the group claiming hostility on the part of space beings take the ominous approach.   In addition to citing examples of distasteful contact with space beings, they also claim suppressive actions on the part of mysterious representatives of space societies, and even threatening visits by individuals who, in the opinion of the visitee, represent such agencies as the CIA, FBI and clandestine US government agencies. [15]  It is claimed that these visitors issue threats to UFO investigators to terminate their investigations immediately.  It is claimed that the reason for such government intervention is that the implications in the existence of extraterrestrial beings are so serious that the government does not want their existence proved to the public. [16]  The subject of implications is treated in chapter IV of this paper.  Suffice it to say at this point that the implications are serious enough that the rationale for suppression is not altogether unreasonable.

   Those who claim hostile intent share the burden of proof is upon them.  As with the other camps, the hostile group has no convincing hardware-type evidence.  The evidence



is circumstantial.  Conclusions are drawn from the frame of reference of the observer.  For example, if an individual suffers temporary paralysis caused by some action on the part of a space being, he, as a human being , may consider this to be undesirable and a hostile act.  This is a subjective conclusion drawn from an act which in itself contains no malevolent or benevolent connotation.  In this example, consider that paralysis may likewise be a beneficial condition to prevent death or injury to the observer by keeping him a safe distance from harm.  The same rationale can be used for the death, injury, abduction and reconnaissance incidents cited in the literature.  These acts could be considered benevolent or neutral in  intent as well as malevolent.  For this reason, the author has found that hostile type literature is more interesting from the standpoint of description of the incident than from the conclusions drawn.  The account of the abduction of Mr. and Mrs. Barney Hill is one of the most compelling report in the literature and is highly recommended to interested readers. [17]   While such an abduction would admittedly be very unnerving to the abducted, the incident caused no harm, if one can discount the possible long term psychological effect of the experience on the Hills.



     In summary, the proponents of hostility tend towards sensationalism, address only specific cases without regard to the general context, are rather superficial in their treatment, may conceal the identity of the principals and draw conclusions concerning intent which do not necessarily follow from the incidents.  On the other hand, some of the points made worthy of consideration, especially those which relate to implications.

     The Ultra Group (Benevolent).   this group is characterized by claims of periodic personal contact with saucer beings, trips in flying saucers to other planets, tours of exotic cities on other planets and discussions with extraterrestrial beings concerning their way of life, attitudes, philosophies and reasons for contact with the Earth.  As a general rule, the extraterrestrial beings described by this group are similar to Man in physical characteristics, but of much higher order of intelligence.  The space beings are technologically, morally, and spiritually for advanced and either directly or through implication attempt to allow Man that he, too, can attain this higher degree of development.  The space beings are benevolent and urge the spiritual approach to life. [18]  They have a fraternal attitude towards Man.  Their visits to Earth occur either as a part of programmed visits to



various parts of space for educational or recreational purposes or specifically for the purpose of enlightening Man.  In addition, there is some concern with Man's experimentation with nuclear energy, since atmospheric detonations modify the lines of magnetic force around the Earth sufficiently to cause an imbalance of the magnetic relationships within the solar system. [19]  this disturbs the space beings for at least four reasons:  They use magnetic forces for power for their space ships; [20] they use magnetic lines of force for navigation; [21]  they do not want to see the planet Earth significantly altered, since this would cause an imbalance within the solar system; and they feel that Man has within himself the potential for spiritual development, which would suffer regression in the event of world nuclear suicide. [22]  So, the interest of the space beings in humanity is one of self interest in addition to the more compelling desire to see Man advance spiritually.  It is claimed that throughout the history of Man the space beings have taken an interest in the spiritual development of Man. [23]  Proponents of the benevolent approach cite many cases of contact between Man and the space beings throughout history.  Classic examples of such contacts, supposedly not properly recognized, are the miracle at Fatima [24] and Ezekiel and



the wheel. [25]   The cloud by day and fire by night which guided Moses on his journey out of Egypt is also claimed to have been a space ship. [26]  The general approach of the benevolent space beings is to discuss problems of humanity in very broad terms.  Concepts of love for fellow man, cooperation, pursuit of things spiritual, a downgrading of material wealth.... all these topics are discussed by the space beings with select Earth beings.  The message is that Man's value system is in error and that pursuit of his present way of life is contrary to the universal plan and prejudicial to Man's further spiritual enlightenment.  Mastery of space travel, telepathic communication, reception and display of images three-dimensionally and in color as exact reproductions of the original, electromagnetic transmission or power....all these technologies and abilities are presented as only natural consequences of higher spiritual development. [27]  It is pointed out that Man does not yet recognize that relationship which exists between the spiritual and the material and therefore struggles along in his feeble efforts to advance his technology without truly understanding what he is doing.   The point is made that Man will continue to ponder the "whys" in his scientific investigations until he has reached the



point in his spiritual development where he will be able to comprehend the interrelationship between the spiritual and the material, and be able to use this understanding to further his interests, which he will recognize as spiritual.

   Although the emphasis is on the spiritual shortcomings of Man, as a matter of course during these discussions the Earth contactee is treated to tours of space vehicles and contacts with space beings. [28]  the space people are usually described as being similar to Man in stature, facial features, skeletal structure, etc., but of superior intelligence and ethical development....soft spoken, kind, gentile, polite and with a radiance which comes from superior spiritual development.

   The most convincing writers in this group present comprehensive, lucid, logical, literate writings in the highest ethical tradition.  Students of philosophy, world religions, occult sciences and the Bible will find that the purported statements if the space beings are in consonance with the major religious beliefs of Man.  According to authors of this group, the space beings have long ago recognized the universal truths scattered throughout all Earth religions and have been able to synthesize these truths into an ethic which they live in their daily



lives.  This recognition of and adherence to the Truth gives the space beings individual powers which we consider supernatural, but which they claim derive as a natural result of spiritual development.

    Here again, the evidence presented by this group is not physical. That is, they do not present pieces of apace ships or other tangible items.  They ask us to believe their accounts on face value because the contacts did in fact occur as written.  In some cases the author presents affidavits warranting the truth of the story or has signed statements by the witnesses. [29]  Affidavits notwithstanding, many in contemporary society will find the spiritual approach to be too rarified to accept and will continue to insist on physical evidence as the only acceptable scientific proof.

   The Normal Believers.  The author has included the word "normal" in identifying this group because its membership is composed of individuals who would be considered rational human beings, as opposed to cult-oriented, by the uninitiated.  The Normal Believers are, nevertheless, believers.  As such, they still are targets for the non-believers, but are not subjected to the intensely sarcastic criticism reserved for the Ultra Believers.  The Normal Believers are convinced that UFOs exist and urge a serious,



methodical approach to investigating UFO incidents.  In addition, they feel that some attempt should be made to understand the extraterrestrials: to try to determine the reasons for their Earth visits.

   This group takes an approach acceptable to modern society.  That is, their approach is pragmatic, practical and in consonance with the scientific method.  It is this group which shows an objective approach to the problem while at the same time vigorously urging a serious investigation into the UFO phenomenon.

   The emphasis in this group is on establishing for the populace that UFOs do exist.  the interest of this group is in feasibility, technology and the establishment of motive or intent.  Their general approach is documentation of sightings, description of incidents, establishment of witness credibility and sincere requests for a thorough and methodical investigation.

   The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) is the single best representative organization for this group.  It consists of respected and "normal" members of society who are specialists in fields such as the physical sciences, the humanities, psychology, etc.  In addition to members and consultants in the Washington,  D.C. area, the location of the home office, NICAP has



qualified regional representatives who are on call to respond to reports of sightings in their respective geographical areas.  Reports of sightings are investigated promptly and documented much in the same format as is recommended by the Air Force. [30]  The NICAP report, "The UFO Evidence," is an excellent example of the objective, thorough approach of NICAP.  The report consists of complete reports of sightings: diagrams of space vehicles as sighted, statements on color, size, shape, maneuvers, direction of movement, etc.  Most impressive are the paragraphs on witnesses.  NICAP has collected sightings from diverse individuals whose testimony cannot be lightly dismissed.  reports come from airline pilots, technical people and a host of other men, women and children, either as individual or group witnesses to sightings.  many sighting reports come from individuals who were skeptics prior to their personal involvement in a sighting.  NICAP is thoroughly convincing in pointing out that UFO sightings do not only come from UFO cultists, but come from random sources and from people of various educational levels and occupations.  In one section of the report there is a table showing comparisons of UFO shapes, size, color, maneuvers, etc.  The reader is immediately struck with the consistency in



characteristics which is apparent among reported at different locations and at different periods of time by different witnesses.  However, these consistencies are apparent not only within the NICAP report but appear throughout the literature, whether the UFO is supposedly benevolent, malevolent or neutral.  (Appendix A to this paper describes those characteristics of UFO sightings most commonly reported throughout the literature.)

   The Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) is another organization which uses a "rational" approach, but organizational discipline appears not to be as refined as NICAP's.  Hover, in addition to being relatively objective, the APRO periodical publication enables a reader to learn of recent sightings in the world shortly after they are reported to APRO. [31]  lest it be assumed that the Normal Believers are all members of one or the other of the above cited organizations, the author offers the following examples of the types of statements which come from independent technical people:

   - Dr. Herman Oberth, noted German rocket expert:  

  These objects are conceived and directed by intelligent beings of a very high order.  They probably do not originate in our solar system, perhaps not even in our galaxy. [32]  



   - Dr. James E. MacDonald, professor of meteorology at the University of Arizona and senior physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Tucson:

  (UFOs) are probably extraterrestrial vehicles engaged in something of the nature of a reconnaissance operation.  (This conclusion is) the least unsatisfactory hypothesis for accounting for the fascinating array of UFO phenomena that are now on record. [33]  

   - from the noted psychoanalyst, Dr. Carl Jung, after he tried to explain UFOs as a psychic manifestation:

  Unfortunately, however, there are good reasons why the UFOs cannot be disposed of in this simple manner.  It remains an established fact, supported by numerous observation, that UFOs have not only been seen visually but have also been picked up on the radar screen and have left traces on the photographic plate.  It boils down to nothing less than this: that either psychic projections throw back a radar echo, or else the appearance of real objects affords an opportunity for mythological projections. [34]  

   - Dr. Leo Sprinkle, professor of psychology at the University of Wyoming, after having seen "something in the sky, round and metallic looking:"

  "...from a personal viewpoint, I am pretty well convinced that we are being surveyed." [35]  

Perhaps the key characteristic of the Normal Believers is their belief that the whole issue of the existence of UFOs is being suppressed by the Air Force.  This allegation is dealt with more fully in Chapter III.  There are various reasons given for this alleged suppression, but the most popular are the impotence of NORAD against UFOs



and orders given to the Air Force to debunk UFOs to prevent mass hysteria among the populace. [36]  The Normal Believers argue that to ignore a reality is to take an ostrich-like approach to the problem, and furthermore, the populace would be able to cope with the realization that UFOs exist without hysteria.  It is claimed that the Air Force knows UFOs exist, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.  So, the Normal Believers persist in their efforts to establish the existence of UFOs.  That a congressional hearing on UFOs took place in 1966 largely because of the pressures of this group attests to its influence. [37]

   The Converts.   Those who have been neutrals, skeptics or outright non-believers but who have eventually sided with the Believers have been placed in this category.  This group, although relatively small, contains individuals who speak persuasively, its members having been at one time in the neutral or negative camp.  In addition, the top level converts have been, or are presently, officially connected with the U.S. Air Force investigation of UFOs.

   The author places in this category Edward J. Ruppelt (formerly Capt. Ruppelt, chief of Project Blue Book,  1951-1953), and Dr. J. Allen Hynek, (director of Dearborn



Observatory, director of the Lindheimer Astronomical Research Center, Chairman of Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and consultant to the USAF on the UFO problem since 1948.)  ____ of the understandable characteristics of this group is the tendency to issue ambiguous or ambivalent public statements on the subject of UFOs which st__ _____ t the speaker to  maneuver in response to diverse external pressures.  Their official and public relationship to the Air Force investigation most likely causes these investigators to assume this relatively safe, non-committal, fence-sitting position.  However, the difference between the public position and the private position can be rather easily detected by the serious researcher.

   Let us look at a few of the statements of Captain Ruppelt and Dr. Hynek as exemplifying this sometimes subtle shift from non-belief or skepticism to belief.  Capt. Ruppelt (deceased) was the chief of the Air Force's Project Blue Book, the project charged with the responsibility for investigating UFO reports, from 1951 until 1953.  During the course of his tenure in this position, he and his staff studied over 4500 reports of UFOs.  All reports were subjected to military intelligence analysis procedures.  they were analyzed through consultations with



astronomers, physicists, aerodynamic engineers and psychologists in the course of the Air Force investigations. [38]  After his release from the Air Force, Captain Ruppelt wrote a now famous book about these investigations entitled "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects." [39]

   The following statements by Capt. Ruppelt appear in the Book.

  I know the full story about flying saucers and I know it has never before been told... [40]

Personally, I don't believe that "It can't be."    I wouldn't class myself as a "believer" exactly,    because I've seen too many UFO reports that first appeared to be unexplainable fall to pieces when  they were thoroughly investigated.  But every time I begin to get skeptical I think of the other re   ports, the many report made by experienced pilots and radar operators, scientists, and other people who knew what they are looking at.  These reports were thoroughly investigated and they are still unknowns.  Of these reports, the radar-visual sightings are the most convincing.  When a ground radar picks up a UFO target and a ground observer sees a light where the radar target is located, then a jet interceptor is scrambled at intercept the UFO and the pilot also sees the light and gets a radar lock on only to have the UFO almost impudently outdistance him, there is no simple answer.  We have no aircraft on this earth that can at will so handily outdistance our latest jets. [41]

What constitutes proof?  Does a UFO have to land at the River Entrance to the Pentagon near the Joint Chiefs of Staff offices?  Or is it proof when a ground radar station detects a UFO, sends a jet to intercept it, the jet pilot sees it, and locks on with his radar, only to have the UFO streak away at a phenomenal speed?  Is it proof when a jet pilot fires at a UFO and sticks to his story even under the threat of Court Marshal?  Does this constitute proof? [42]





  Maybe the final proven answer will be that all of the UFOs that have been reported are merely misidentified known objects.  Or maybe the pilots, radar specialists, generals, industrialists, scientists, and the man on the street who have told me, "I wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't seen it myself," knew what they were talking about.  Maybe the Earth is being visited by interplanetary space ships. [43]  

   The reader asks himself, "What does Capt. Ruppelt, the former chief of Project Blue Book, really think about the reality or non-reality of the existence of UFOs" This writer suggests that Ruppelt's personal beliefs are rather thinly disguised, if at all.

    Dr. Hynek, the present consultant to the Air Force in UFO matters, makes statements similar in approach to Ruppelt's.  The following are examples.  For the congressional record, Dr. Hynek made the following statement:

  During this entire period of nearly twenty years I have attempted to remain as open-minded in this subject as circumstances permitted, this despite the fact that the whole subject seemed utterly ridiculous, and many of us firmly believed that, like some fad or craze, it would subside in a matter of months. [44]  

   In a well known magazine, Dr. Hynek made this statement:

  In 1948, I was asked by the U.S. Air Force to serve as a scientific consultant on the increasing number of reports of strange lights in the sky.  I was then Director of the Astronomical Observatory of Ohio State University, and am now the Chairman of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern.  I had  



  scarcely heard of UFOs in 1948 and, like every other scientist I knew, assumed that they were nonsense. [45]  

   Hynek's early skepticism and caution is further revealed in this statement:

  It has come to my attention rather forcibly through correspondence and personal contact, that many of my colleagues in various fields are more than just a little interested in the "natives", although they might well disclaim this interest if challenged.  I certainly would not have expressed openly any such interest had I not been asked to do so officially many years ago, first under Project Sign and later under Project Blue Book. [46]  

   The shift from skepticism to cautious urging that the subject of UFOs be taken seriously can be seen in the following statements:

  Despite the seeming inanity of the subject, I felt that I would be derelict in my scientific responsibility to the Air Force if I did not point out that the whole UFO phenomenon might have aspects to it worthy of scientific attention. [47]

All of this increased my own concern and sense of persona; responsibility,. and motivated me to urge the initiation of a meaningful scientific investigation of the UFO phenomenon be physical and social scientists.  I had guardedly raised this suggestion in the past and at various official hearings, but with little success.  UFO was a term that called forth buffoonery and caustic banter precisely because scientists paid no attention to the raw data - the reports themselves. [48]




  Still, on the average, if several pilots and/or policemen concur on the main points of the story, particularly if the duration of their experience was long enough (a matter of minutes rather than seconds) to have brought their judgment into play, it is difficult to brush aside their seemingly hardheaded testimony.  And when one gets reports from scientists, engineers and technicians whose credibility by all common standards is high and whose moral caliber seems to preclude a hoax, one can do no less than hear them out, in all seriousness. [49]

As a scientist, I must be mindful of the lessons of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon simply did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time. [50]

I cannot dismiss the UFO phenomenon with a shrug.  I have begun to feel that there is a tendency in 20th Century science to forget that there will be a 21st Century science, and indeed a 30th Century science, from which vantage points our knowledge of the universe may appear quite different than it does to us.  We suffer, perhaps, from temporal provincialism, a form of arrogance that has always irritated posterity. [51]


   Referring to a methodical investigation which he proposes, Dr. Hynek says the following:

  Admittedly, I will be surprised if an intensive, year long study yields nothing.  To the contrary, I think that mankind may be in for the greatest adventure since dawning human intelligence turned outward to contemplate the universe. [52]  

   This writer feels that the foregoing statements need no commentary.  It is to be remembered that the statements come from a man who has been officially connected with the UFO problem since 1948 and has been privy to most, if at all, of the data officially reported, in addition



to having been personally involved in many of the investigations.

The Neutrals.   This group consists of that segment of the population which has no opinion in the UFO debate, either through personal choice or because of professional constraint.  Within this large group are contained the astronomers, biologists and other scientists who speak of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but who are non-committal about the existence of UFOs.   The U.S. Air Force is a member of the neutral group, at least officially.  The Air Force position is a perplexing one.  Although the Air Force has attempted to show official neutrality and objectivity in the UFO debate, it has in reality vacillated between belief and non-belief, all the while trying to give the impression of neutrality.  A reader of official Air Force pronouncements is left with the problem of determining for himself what the position is, if in fact there is a position, since he may read official Air Force statements which are pro-UFO, neutral, and anti-UFO.  This problem will be discussed at length in Chapter III of this paper.

   Of interest are the statements made by various members of the scientific community relative to the possibility of the existence of life elsewhere in the universe.



It is acknowledged that it would not necessarily follow that UFOs exist as vehicles controlled by some extraterrestrial intelligence even if it could be proven that life does in fact exist elsewhere.  However, it appears that the UFO believers would derive a certain degree of support and the positive UFO position would gain increased credibility if it could be demonstrated that life exists elsewhere, since it is assumed that "intelligence" presumes some type of living form.

   Dr. Carl Sagan (Department of Astronomy, Harvard University; Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and advisor to the armed services on extraterrestrial life) has this to say:

  It now seems quite clear that Earth is not the only inhabited planet.  There is evidence that the bulk of the stars in the sky have planetary systems.  Recent research concerning the origin of life on Earth suggests that the physical and chemical processes leading to the origin of life occur rapidly in the early history of the majority of planets.  The selective value of intelligence and technical civilization is obvious, and it seems likely that a large number of planets within our Milky Way galaxy - - perhaps as many as a million - - are inhabited by technical civilizations in advance of our own.  Interstellar space flight is far beyond our present technical capabilities, but there seems to be no fundamental physical objections to preclude, from our own vantage point, the possibility of its development by other civilizations. [53]  

   In 1962, in an address to the convention of the American Rocket Society in Los Angeles, Dr. Carl Sagan said that mankind



must be prepared to face the possibility that the Earth has already been visited by intelligent beings from elsewhere in the universe, and that they have, or have had, bases on the far side of the moon. [54]

   Another astronomer, Dr. Jesse Greenstein, staff member of Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories and professor of astrophysics at the California Institute of Technology says:

  Fascinating problems of the future will be concerned with life and intelligence on other worlds beyond the realm of physical science.  We must try to understand things much more difficult than the universe, such as future discoveries of life and intelligence somewhere out there. [55]  

   Certain competent lay members of society will also be heard.  One such individual is John G. Fuller, a journalist recently turned free-lance UFO investigator, and the author of "Incident at Exeter" [56] and "The Interrupted Journey." [57]  Both these works are examples of objective reportage.  Mr. Fuller has added significantly to the UFO literature with his moderate approach.  In "Incident at Exeter" Mr. Fuller very carefully documents the sighting at Exeter, New Hampshire, in September 1965.  The documentation is exhaustive, containing numerous interviews with people who were witnesses to the sighting, containing a detailed explanation



of the approach taken by Mr. Fuller, and containing a detailed discussion of the many factors and situations surrounding that particular sighting.  Incidentally, Mr. Fuller quotes Frank B. Salisbury, of the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology of Colorado State University, as having said:

  I must admit that any favorable mention of the flying saucers by a scientist amounts to extreme heresay and places the one making the statement in danger of excommunication by the scientific theocracy.  Nevertheless, in recent years I have investigated the story of the unidentified flying object (UFO), and I am no longer able to dismiss the idea lightly. [58]  

   Although Mr. Fuller does not specifically state that he is convinced that UFOs of extraterrestrial origin exist, his concluding statements in "Incident at Exeter" are compelling in their appeal for release by the government of any information which it may be withholding and for a scientific investigation an a major scale.

   In "The Interrupted Journey", Mr. Fuller once more meticulously documents the experience of Mr. and Mrs. Barney Hill in connection with their alleged abduction by space beings.  This account is anything but frivolous, and does not contain the science fiction sensationalism which one might expect.  It is a report of the circumstances surrounding the abduction as revealed



independently by Mr. and Mrs. Hill to Dr. Benjamin Simon, M.D., under rigidly controlled hypnosis.  The book is in large part made up of the transcript of the tape recorded interviews between Dr, Simon and Mr. and Mrs. Hill while the Hills were under hypnosis.  Appropriate professional commentary by Dr. Simon is included.  "The Interrupted Journey" raises many trouble some questions about the existence of UFOs, the motives of the space beings (if the in fact exist), and what the experience which the Hills apparently had portends for the future of Man.

   Of recent, we have seen the entry of the mass news media into the UFO debate in a position of neutrality.  Numerous articles have appeared recently in "reputable" newspapers and magazine in the form of editorials and special features, and scientific journals have carried a few articles on UFOs.   There has been a significant change in the approach that the mass circulation publications have taken.  Whereas early articles were usually derisively written as human interest stories, replete with appropriate references to green men, the more recent articles seriously raise the question of the existence of UFOs. [59]  This change in attitude may be attributable



to the generally more permissive outlook which the public has recently taken.  the approach taken by mass media publications seems to reflect quite accurately the attitudes of the general populace at any particular point in time.

   Those in the neutral camp have made a most significant contribution to the UFO debate: they have brought the subject to the attention of the general public without taking sides.  They have in effect assured the public that the subject of UFOs can be discussed in public.  It appears that as long as UFO articles did not appear in mass media in serious form the general public was reluctant to broach the subject for fear of ridicule.  Once the newspapers and magazines began to address the subject with some seriousness, they seemed to signal to the faint hearted that it was now all right to discuss the subject.  Popular interest and discussion in a society responsive to public opinion is usually a precursor of official action.

   One might say in summary that the Neutrals view the UFO debate from a position which allows them interest without involvement.  It is a position which is politically equivocal and more or less professionally safe.



                The Non-Believers

   The spectrum for Non-Believers is less definite than for the Believers, and the author has chosen to place all Non-Believers in a common category.  There have been, and continue to be, a few spokesmen for the Non-Believer group, but the output of literature for this group is quantitatively far below that of the various believer groups.  Generally, the Non-Believer literature has as its main objective the debunking of believers, the challenging of witnesses to UFO incidents, and attempts to demonstrate "scientifically" that UFOs do not exist.  the usual approach is to cite examples wherein a UFO sighting has been definitely identified as some neutral or man-made phenomenon or object, and then by analogy to extrapolate that particular solution to unresolved cases.

   Characteristically, the Non-Believer literature contains shallow argument, irrelevancies, faulty analogy and a failure at address knotty cases of UFO sightings without rebuttal in specific or convincing terms.

   The author has personally encountered many cases of non-belief in which the Non-Believer has had little or no knowledge of the specifics of the debate and of



the evidence and has merely "felt" that UFOs do not exist.  In these instances, the position of non-belief is probably taken out of a combination of ignorance and the desire to be considered normal, conventional and stable.

   Within the anti-UFO group there are various shades of non-belief: from the doubting to the absolutely intransigent.  But regardless of the degree of non-belief, the Non-Believers use "rationality" as a common approach.  That is, they explain sightings in terms of what Man today considers acceptable as defined by the scientific method.  This group feels that all instances of UFO sightings can be explained "rationally" as man-made objects or misinterpretations of natural phenomena, or mental aberration, or hoax.  Even in instances in which they are at a loss to propose an explanation  they are confident that the explanation lies in one of the categories cited.  They do not deny that many people have seen what they consider to be UFOs; they say that these observers are mistaken in their observations and that what was truly seen was some "rationally" explainable object or phenomenon. this group will not entertain the idea that UFOs are extraterrestrial space vehicles.



   The usual approach is to cite examples of positive identification of something sighted as man-made or natural and then to attempt to use that particular example as a plausible explanation for those sightings categorized as unknown.

   The literature of the Non-Believers becomes at times as caustic about the subject as that of the Believers.  One of the prime weapons of this rational, science-oriented group ridicule.  Dr. Hynek, scientist-turned-convert, properly points out that "ridicule is not a part of the Scientific Method and the public should not be taught that it is." [60]

   The attempts by the Non-Believers to explain UFOs in terms of natural phenomena and mistaken identity is exhaustive.  Let us look at some examples of the approach] taken as exemplified by the writings of Dr. Donald Menzel, [61] Professor of Astrophysics at Harvard University, and Lt. Col. Lawrence J. Tacker, USAF. [62]  Both these writers are placed by the author in the category of intransigent Non-Believers and, as such, may not truly represent the more moderate Non-Believers.   However both Menzel and Tacker are quoted profusely in most of the Non-Believer literature as authorities - Menzel representing science and Tacker representing the United States Air Force.



   Dr. Menzel, in his "Flying Saucers'" [63] sets the general tone of the book in his first sentence: "Throughout the ages, apparitions of one kind or another have plagued the human race."  On page 6 of the same book,  Menzel states that "Flying saucers are real - as real as a rainbow, and no more dangerous."  From that departure point he goes on throughout the book to describe how various natural phenomena in the sky behave.  He implies in most cases that UFOs can be accounted for in large measure by these celestial phenomena.  He describes the behavior and appearance of the setting sun, comets and meteors, solar halos, mock suns, ice crystals, lenses of air, mirages, refraction, aurora borealis and conditions causing radar anomalies.  These discussions are very interesting, but the reader is left to his own resources to try to match these descriptions of natural phenomena to specific UFO sightings.  In those few instances in which Menzel attempts to relate these phenomena to sightings, he does so very briefly and almost as if he were anxious to move on to his next topic.

   As an example: beginning on page twelve of the cited work, and continuing through page seventeen, Menzel repeats several reports made by pilots in connection with sightings.  The reports are by pilots of Eastern Airlines,



Mid-Continent Airlines, Lt. George F. Gorman (ANG) and others.  After describing the various encounters, Menzel comments only on the Gorman incident.  After describing "fireball fighter" (foo fighter) cases experienced in World War II, he extrapolates the observation to the Gorman case with, "to my mind, the similarity of Gorman's object to the foo fighters seems entirely reasonable." [64]  He gives no specifics and no analysis.  He asks us to accept this as an explanation because it "seems reasonable to him.  Once having established in this manner that the explanation lies in foo fighters, Menzel then incorporates this conclusions into the statement, "I think Gorman was right when he stated that the foo fighter seemed to be controlled by thought.  However, the thought that controlled it was his own." [65]  Gorman did not say the object was a foo fighter. [66]  Menzel does not say how he arrived at the conclusion that the object was controlled by Gorman's thought; he just comes to that conclusion.  Lest the reader question the logic of Menzel's conclusions, he says, "We may not be able to account for every detail; the impressions of the observer are hazy and leave many gaps." [67]

   Menzel goes on in the same vein in his attempt to explain some of the sightings reported throughout history,



and dispose of Ezekiel's wheel as a misinterpretation of a complex solar halo. [68]  In like manner, the classic Lubbock lights case is explained: [69]

   . . . a low, thin layer of haze or smoke reflected the lights of a distant house or some other multiple source.  The haze must have been inconspicuous to the eye, because Tombaugh comments on the unusual clarity of the sky. [70]  

Capt. Ruppelt comments thus on the Lubbock lights case:

  When four college professors, a geologist, a chemist, a physicist and a petroleum engineer report seeing the same UFOs on fourteen different occasions, the event can be classified as, at least, unusual.  Add the fact that hundreds of other people saw these UFOs and that they were photographed, and the story gets even better.  Add a few more facts - that these UFOs were picked up on radar and that a few people got a close look at one of them, and the story begins to convince even the most ardent skeptic. [71]  

   Apparently, Menzel was not convinced.  In Menzel's discussion of radar there is no explanation as to how radar picks up light reflections.

   The above examples illustrate the type of logic used by Menzel.  The approach is one typical of the Non-Believer group.  In Menzel's case, one gets the feeling almost of desperation.  He has so long resisted the idea of UFOs as space vehicles, has attacked so many of the Believers, becoming the champion of many of the Non-Believers, that he has placed himself in the uncomfortable position of not being able to gracefully extricate himself from his unyielding position.  He, himself, best illustrates his



intransigence and closed mind with these words:

  It would be absolutely impossible for an object of such a shape to veer or maneuver as reported.  And there is no possible way that such an object could be immune to the high resistance of the Earth's atmosphere at its reported speeds of movement. [72]  

   It would appear that the use of the words "impossible" and "no possible way" is presumptuous and not characteristic of the inquisitiveness and open-mindedness desirable in a scientific investigator.

   Another widely quoted Non-Believer is Lt. Col. Lawrence J. Tacker, a former chief of Public Information, Headquarters, USAF.  He published a book in 1960 titled "Flying Saucers and the U.S. Air Force." [73]  This book has been a key publication in the UFO debate.  It is used by the Non-Believers for official support of their position.  Tacker takes generally the same approach as Menzel in that he attempts to demonstrate that UFOs are cases of mistaken identity of man-made or natural objects and phenomena.  Tacker devotes a large part of the book to assuring the populace that the Air Force is not withholding UFO information, a charge constantly levied against the Air Force by all Believer groups.  In Tacker's book one encounters what might be called the demented-by-reason-of-association technique, or the oblique ridicule method.  Also, one encounters false logic in the Melzelian pattern.



Let us briefly look at some examples of Tacker's approach.

   The foreword to the book is by General Thomas D. White, Chief of Staff of the Air Force at the time.  Gen. White explains that the Air Force is responsible for the air defense of the United States  He goes on to say that the Air Force is in charge of UFO investigations.  The last two sentences of the statement are subject to question if they are based on Tacker's arguments.  These statements are:

  1. ". . . all unidentified flying object sightings are investigated in meticulous detail by Air Force personnel and qualified scientific consultants."

2. "So far, not a single bit of material evidence of the existence of spaceships has been found."


   In his book, Tacker uses an approach which seems to contradict the first statement about meticulous Air Force investigation.  The second statement should have added to it the words "as far as the Air Force is concerned."  Another interesting thing about the second statement is that it illustrates to some degree the ambivalence or equivocation of so many of the official pronouncements.  It will be noted that the statement does not say that spaceships do not exist; it merely implies that they do not exist.  What this sentence does is lead the careless reader to a false



conclusion while at the same time preserving an escape opportunity, semantically, if the existence of UFOs is "proven" at some later date.  In itself, it may appear to be a sincere statement, but in the context of the debate it is evasive.

   In his opening chapter, Tacker gives an account of a sighting near the Hawaiian Islands on 11 July 1959.  This was a sighting reported by five separate observers, all airline pilots: one from Slick Airways, one from Empress Airlines, one from United Airlines and two from Pan American - all reporting the same object.  Although each report varies in some of the specifics, these common observations were made: very bright lights in a clear sky, moving at high speed and making a sharp (90 degree) turn in flight at high speed.  Tacker then goes into some general information about meteors and fireballs and disposes of this sighting by saying that the opinion of the Air Technical Intelligence Center was that the object was a fireball, and that they felt that all observers had seen this same meteor. [74]  It should be noted here that Tacker uses the same device as Menzel, in that he tries first to establish in the mind of the reader what the object was and then, using his conclusion, he incorporates that conclusion into a subsequent statement.



   At the end of this particular narrative, Tacker makes a footnote comment that he used poetic license in reporting this incident, for dramatic effect, and also, that this narrative "proves" the "fact" that even highly trained observers can be mystified by what they have seen. [75]

   After dealing with several other sightings, Tacker closes his third chapter with, "And so it goes.  Sightings come in from all over the world from various types of individuals, with the great majority of sightings logically explained after objective investigation.  Certainly the experience gained over the last 13 years points up to the fact that flying saucers are not space craft from other worlds but, rather, represent conventional objects or aerial phenomena seen under confusing conditions."

   Another interesting statement by Tacker appears on page 47 of his book:

  The Air Force emphasizes the belief that if more immediate detailed objective observational data could have been obtained on the unexplained flying saucer sightings in its files, these too would have been satisfactorily explained as conventional objects or some form of aerial phenomena.  

   Another example of Tacker's logic is illustrated in a letter, dated 15 November 1960, which he sent to



Coral Lorenzen, of the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO), and which deals with the famous Trinidade Island sighting. [76]  In his letter Tacker quotes a statement by the Brazilian Navy Ministry, which reads in part,

  . . . This Ministry has no motive to impede the release of photographs of the referred to object taken by Mr. Almiro Barauna, who was at the Trinidade Island at the invitation of the Navy, and in the presence of a large number of the crew of the ALMIRANTE SALDANHA from whose deck the photographs were taken.  Clearly, this Ministry will not be able to make any pronouncement concerning the object seen because the photographs do not constitute sufficient proof for such purpose.  

Tacker then says,

  This official statement of the Brazilian Navy Ministry clearly indicates the fact that the photographs were of no value in proving or disproving the existence of flying saucers as space ships.  I trust this clarifies any misunderstanding you may have had concerning this sighting and the Air Force Conclusion that it was a hoax.  

   Let us consider these statements.  The Brazilian Navy Ministry refers to an "object."  They say that the photographs were taken in the presence of "a large number of the crew."  They go on to say that the photographs "do not constitute sufficient proof" to allow them to rule on what the object was.  Tacker's logic leads him on to say that "clearly" the photographs  were of no value in proving or disproving the existence  of flying saucers as space ships.  The Brazilian Navy



Ministry did not say this.  They said that the photographs did not constitute sufficient proof to enable them to make a pronouncement.  In addition, Tacker qualifies his statement about the existence of flying saucers by adding. "as space ships."  So, he does not say that Mr. Barauna and the crew did not see a flying saucer.  The final twist of logic comes in the  last sentence when Tacker says that the Air Force has concluded that the whole thing was a hoax.

   Mrs. Lorenzen discusses the processing and analysis of Mr. Barauna's film in Chapter XI of her book, "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax." [77]  She says that the film was processed immediately after the photos were taken, and that the processing was witnesses by several of the officers of the ship, and that the negatives were viewed by the  entire crew of the ship immediately after processing.  She says that the negatives were sent to Cruzeiro do Sul Aerophotogrammetric Service, where they were analyzed.  The laboratory determined that they were genuine.  If this is true, then this causes one to wonder on what basis the Air Force has declared this sighting a hoax.

   These brief examples illustrate the approach taken by Lt. Col. Tacker and Dr. Menzel.  A was pointed out earlier. Menzel and Tacker are not in the moderate Non-Believer camp, but they have become champions of this



group and are widely quoted as the scientific and official authority by the Non-believer group.   Some of the explanations for sightings presented by this group are easy to accept within the framework of the scientific method.  There is no question that a portion of the sightings are indeed misinterpretations or hoaxes.  The Non-Believers cite several cases of sightings which have been definitely identified as misinterpretations, and they substantiate these cases.  Also, there have been several cases in which individuals have admitted perpetrating a hoax.  However, it does not follow that because some cases can be demonstrated to be misinterpretations  or hoaxes that all sightings can be explained in these terms.  It is most difficult to reconcile many sightings as reported by reputable and qualified observers with the explanations proposed by the Non-Believers.

   This group has been severe in its debunking of witnesses and has incurred the wrath and disgust of many.  The Non-Believers should remember that, while the Believers must demonstrate that UFOs exist, the Non-Believers must demonstrate that they do not.  The crux of the debate lies in the definition of acceptable and valid evidence.




   Very generally, these are the participants in the UFO debate, which goes on interminably.   Unfortunately, the Air Force is caught in the cross-fire as the Believers debate the intent of the space beings, the Non-Believers try to discount the whole subject, and the Neutrals and Converts plead for level-headed investigation.  The Air Force response to, and involvement in, the UFO debate will be discussed in the next chapter.

                Some Observations

   Of recent, there seems to be a general shift in attitude, frequently quite subtle, on the question of UFOs.  Reputable scientists issue statements from time to time which do not reflect as negative as approach as they have borne heretofore.  There appears to be among the populace less reluctance to consider the possibility, at least, of the existence of UFOs. The shift may be attributable, in part, to advancing space technology, to more and more sightings by reputable individuals and groups, to more photographic evidence and to a general feeling that there may be  something to the UFO debate if the Air Force has asked the University of Colorado to study the problem.





   It can be seen from the foregoing discussion that there is diversity of opinion in the UFO debate.   The populace at large looks to the Air Force as the authority and is apparently willing to accept official Air Force explanations.  The Air Force position on the existence of UFOs is as follows:

   To date, the firm conclusions of project Blue Book are:

             1. No unidentified flying object reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security.

             2. There has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as UNIDENTIFIED represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge.

             3. There has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as UNIDENTIFIED are extraterrestrial vehicles. [1]

    The challenge to this Air Force position comes from those who have studied the UFO problem in some detail and includes individuals who have been associated with the Air Force investigation.



                 Past Performance

    From the very beginning of the current UFO debate, which is defined as the way Mr. Arnold reported objects which appeared to him like "flying saucers," the Air Force was off to a bad start. [2]  Dr. Hynek at that time suggested that Mr. Arnold's "saucers" were some type of known aircraft.  Based on Kenneth Arnold's sighting, and the interest it generated across the nation, the Air Force became officially involved with UFOs. [3]   The early years were devoted to investigation of
specific cases and to the development of an organization to handle the problem.  The pattern for official Air Force pronouncements seems to have been established in 1952 when a panel of consultants recommended that the "Air Force take immediate steps to strip the unidentified flying objects of the special status and the aura of mystery they had unfortunately acquired." [4]  The Air Force has from that time very consistently followed this advice.  One could get the feeling that at no time has the Air Force been really seriously interested in the UFO problem.  As Tacker states, "The Air Force's interest, or program, was born or, one might say, evolved from necessity." [5]  In this case, necessity could be understood to mean necessity to quell the public clamor which followed



Arnold's sighting.  So, one might say that the Air Force was pressured by public opinion into doing something.

   Dr. Hynek, the Air Force's special consultant on UFOs, says this about Air Force interest in UFOs in 1948:

  . . . The Wright-Patterson group usually consisted only of a captain, who headed the team, one other officer, a sergeant, and myself as occasional consultant.  The fact that the commanding officer was a captain indicates the extent of the Air Force's concern for this investigation. [6]  

   Since 1948 there has been little change in the staffing of this management office.  Today, a major heads the office, he has a lieutenant, a staff sergeant and a secretary to assist him.  However, it must be recognized that this is a central staff only.  Major Quintanilla is assisted in investigation and evaluation by various consultants and by the Air Force officers located at Air Force bases.   The writer of this paper has serious reservations about the competence of the officers delegated the duty of acting as investigating officers at Air Force bases.  Although it is recognized that generalities may not be valid, this writer was appalled at the ignorance of one such officer who was interviewed by the writer.  He had his equipment: camera, compass, binoculars, etc., but knew little about what he was supposed to investigate.  He had not read any of the UFO literature, did not know any of the background of the UFO



debate, except what had been briefed to him in grossly general terms, and did not know of the existence of NICAP, which he referred to as "nightcap" in his briefing notes.

   Even if one attributes exceptional competence to the central Blue Book staff, the grade structure and paucity of numbers could be interpreted by sensitive individuals as an indication that the Air Force does not take the UFO problem seriously and maintains the Blue Book office to assuage the sensibilities of the public.

   Admittedly, the Air Force is in a difficult position.  They must try to maintain objectivity; they must be relatively conservative and operate within the framework of the scientific method as presently defined; they must consider the effects of their pronouncements on the American Public, but the man-at-large and the scientific community; they must insure that their pronouncements on the are in consonance with national policy... and they must be able to reconcile these constraints with the truth.  In cases where the truth and the constraints are not compatible, something must be sacrificed.  It goes without saying that any official pressure on the Air Force, an agency of the government, can be quite effective.  If



these pressures dictates that only partial truths be told, then the Air Force has only three options: tell that partial truth as best it can, refuse to comply, or refuse to say anything.  The Air Force, as the official agency for UFO investigations, cannot remain silent, and it is not realistic to think that the Air Force is in a position to refuse the "guidance" of higher authority.  This leaves the last option:  tread the hazardous path of partial truth, ambivalence, ambiguity and vagueness.  This, of course, may be the best path from a national standpoint, in view of the implications, but organizations like NICAP and APRO are not satisfied with this approach and constantly remind the Air Force of their displeasure through publications, letters to the Air Force and agitation among various congressmen and senators.

   A serious investigator of the UFO problem cannot believe that the Air Force is satisfied with its solutions.  This presumes that the investigations are carried out with competence.  One begins to appreciate the dilemma of the Air Force when one considers that Captain Ruppelt spent two years as the chief of Project Blue Book but did not publish his book until 1956, after leaving the Air Force.  The question could be asked, "Why was the information contained in Ruppelt's book not published as an



official Blue Book report while he was in charge of the UFO investigation?  Ruppelt speaks his mind in his book.  Why did he not say what he had to say while he was holding his official position?  Was it because he was officially constrained?  Tacker has this to say in a rather obvious reference to Ruppelt:

  . . . It is conceivable that some person or persons associated with the Air Force program were personally convinced that flying saucers might be real and could be interplanetary spaceships.  

   If this statement is with reference to Ruppelt, it is indeed astounding.  Was it not Ruppelt's job to make an evaluation?  If not, what was his function as chief?  Was Ruppelt the Air Force's expert on UFOs?  If not, was he incompetent?  If he was incompetent, why did the Air Force accept his reports during his tenure as chief?  Does a change from active duty to civilian life change a man's basic competence?  If Ruppelt held the views which he espouses in his book during his tenure as chief, why did he not make these views publicly known?  Questions such as these are elementary.  Unfortunately, throughout this whole UFO debate the Air Force's answers to questions such as these have shown remarkable ineptitude.  In cases in which the Air Force has attempted to answer such questions, ineptitude has only compounded the



problem, because the Believers immediately have taken the Air Force to task.  In an effort to clarify and explain what it really meant, the Air Force has clarified itself into even greater problems by trying to explain the logic on which the initial statement was based.

   As an example of how the Air Force gets into a position from which it has difficulty extricating itself, the writer of this paper has selected at random just one case from among the almost innumerable cases which would just as well illustrate the point.  This case also illustrates the problem of credibility, the question of the thoroughness of Air Force investigations, the problem of inconsistency, the problem of carelessness and the problem of community relations.  This particular case has been widely commented on in the UFO literature and has caused considerable consternation as to the Air Force approach.

   The sighting occurred on January 11, 1966, at Wanaque, New Jersey. [8]  The sighting was witnessed by entire communities.  At the Wanaque reservoir, over which the UFO hovered for two hours, the police had to set up traffic controls to handle the volume of pedestrians and automobiles which converged on the reservoir.  Among the witnesses were the mayor of Wanaque, a city



councilman, various police officers and the general public.  The UFO hovered over the reservoir from 6:20 PM until 8:58 PM.  It was observed with the naked eye and through binoculars.  It was described as a bright disk between two and nine feet in diameter, silent, and playing a bright light an the surface of the ice on the reservoir.  Its speed in flight was described as about 1000 MPH as it moved up and down the reservoir (6 miles).  The light was white, changed to green, and at times the white light had a red fringe.  The UFO came to within twenty feet of the surface of the ice.  Those are the essential elements of the sighting.

   This sighting was reported immediately to the nearest Air force bases (Stewart AFB, N.Y. and McGuire AFB, N.J.).  Stewart Air Base reported no military aircraft in the area.  Later, McGuire Air Base said that the UFO was a weather balloon which was launched from Kennedy International Airport.  A weather observer at Patterson, N.J. then said that the UFO might be the planet Venus or an aircraft.  Then Stewart Air Base said that an Air Force helicopter with a powerful beacon had been on a mission in the area.  McGuire then called the local police and rescinded their balloon explanation.  A Major Sherman



then called from Stewart Air Base and denied the earlier Stewart explanation of the helicopter.  he said that there were no aircraft from Stewart in the area.  This call took place after several aircraft were seen over the reservoir.  The next day, the Pentagon announced that the UFO was a helicopter with a powerful beacon.  Shortly thereafter, Wright-Patterson made the announcement that the UFO could be attributed to the planets Venus and Jupiter and an Air Force Helicopter.

   This narrative need little comment.  If one tries to reconcile the sighting as reported by many witnesses at any of the explanations offered, there are several things left unexplained.  The inconsistencies in the official statements are obvious.  Of interest is the matter of the aircraft in the area.  There are many cases in the literature in which it is claimed that the Air Force has denied dispatching aircraft to investigate, even though these aircraft have been seen in the UFO area.  As for the object itself and the official explanation, one would question a disc-shaped object able to move up and down the reservoir silently at 1000 MPH as a helicopter, a planet, or a weather balloon.  How were these explanations arrived at without an on-the-spot official observer?  If the Air Force did not know what



the object was, why did they try to explain it?  Could they not have said that they did not know but would investigate?  This is a case of poor judgment and inept handling.  The press was quite caustic in its comments about the Air Force explanation.  Even assuming that the thousands of people had observed some natural phenomenon, or aircraft, or were suffering from mass hallucination, or that a hoax was being perpetrated, it would appear that the Air Force handled the situation poorly and not in the best interest of Air Force-community relations.  With the way the Air Force handled this sighting, would it not seem natural for the population to wonder, at least, about the efficiency and coordination of the Air Force?

    In another case, several sightings of UFOs occurred over the state of Oklahoma during the period 31 July to 3 August 1965.  The UFOs were tracked on radar by the weather bureau in Wichita and were seen by a variety of witnesses, including many at McConnell Air Force Base. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol reported watching diamond-shaped formations of UFOs for half an hour.  Details in this case are unimportant, because regardless of the specifics, the Air Force pronouncement on this incident



is inexcusable.  The Air Force answer to these sightings was that the observers had seen the stars Rigel, Capella and Aldebran.  There was only one problem: These stars were on the opposite side of the Earth from Oklahoma during the period of the sightings.  Star locations were confirmed by Walter Webb, Hayden Planetarium, Boston, and Robbert Risser, Director, Oklahoma Planetarium, who said of the Air Force explanation. "This is as far from the truth as you can get." [10]  This case illustrates the type of answer provided to the public by the Air Force in many cases.  This type of answer has become so common that the Believers have come to expect that the Air Force will "solve" UFO cases in this manner.  What this does to Air Force credibility is obvious.  Another interesting point is that the Air Force classifies UFOs in three general categories: Identified, Insufficient Data and Unidentified. [11]  In the case just mentioned, one wonders into which classification it was placed.  the whole matter of the Air Force classification system, the basis on which the Air Force classifies sightings, what constitutes adequate substantiation for a classification of Identified and the validity of the statistical approach as a method for determining the existence or non-existence of UFOs have come under fire



from a variety of sources.  A particularly pointed remark comes from the "Yale Scientific Magazine":

  Based on unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public, unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method.  One must conclude that the highly publicized periodic Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of UFO phenomena. [12] (See Appendix B)  

   The allegation that the Air Force is concealing the truth about UFOs and knows more than it is telling the public is a frequent one.  In the forefront of the censorship debate is Donald Kehoe (Major, USMC, Ret.), Director, NICAP.  His books, "The Flying Saucer Conspiracy" [13] and "Flying Saucers, Top Secret" [14] deal with what is claimed to be Air Force censorship of UFO information.  One example from the latter book will illustrate the problem. [15]

   Kehoe had been invited to appear on a radio program, Armstrong Circle Theater, to participate in a panel discussion of the UFO problem.  He had planned to bring up Capt. Ruppelt's claim that UFOs were real, were interplanetary and that the Air Force knew this, to the extent of publishing a report to this effect in an official Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC)



report in 1948. [16]  The individual charge of reviewing the program prior to its airing told Kehoe that he  could not use that material because of time limitations Kehoe suspected Air Force pressure on the radio station and asked if this was the case.  The answer he received was that CBS did not want to get into difficulty with the Air Force.  Kehoe cut the referenced discussion from his script, but in the heat of the discussion during the actual broadcast he declared that he would make an announcement never before made to the public, at which time his microphone was cut off.  There was a public clamor about this in the press and in letters from individuals to the radio station.  In answer to an inquiry by a NICAP member, Herbert A. Carlborg, CBS editor of Editing, made this statement:

  This program has been carefully cleared for security reasons.  therefore, it was the responsibility of this network to insure performance that was in accordance with predetermined security standards.  Any indication that there would be a deviation from the script might lead to a statement that neither this network nor the individuals on the program were authorized to release... [17]  

   This case raises the question: Cleared for security by whom?  It is interesting to note that Tacker claims that no such report existed, [18] even though Capt. Ruppelt said that this information was contained in a Top Secret



ATIC report which he had read while hw was chief of Project Blue Book. [19]  Either Tacker or Ruppelt is in error.

   Direct and threatening official pressure on individuals who have been involved in UFO sightings is a recurring subject throughout the literature.  A frequent charge is that the individual is approached by men in uniform or plain clothes and threatened with loss of job if he talks about his sighting.   Frank Edwards cites one such incident in which it is claimed that an industrial worker who had seen an UFO was interviewed by two military men and asked to maintain silence on the subject.  When the worker appeared hesitant, he was supposedly told by these military men that his employer had government contracts and that they would not like to see the worker get into trouble with his employer. [20]  This pattern is a frequent one in the literature.

   Although incidents such as those outlined above are cited in the UFO literature as indicating duplicity, inefficiency and confusion in the Air Force, the official Air Force pronouncements themselves are so phrased that they are subject to question.  The very UFO credo of the Air Force, as stated in Blue Book pronouncements, is confusing and evasive.



   Let us look at the three-part Blue Book position statement. [21]  This is Blue Book statement:

  No identified flying object reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security.  

   A reader of this statement might ask:  Does this mean that the Air Force has determined that UFOs do exist, but that the Air Force is trying to reassure the people that they are not hostile?  Is this the prime concern of the Air Force. determine the intent of UFOs?  Are they not interested in determining whether or not UFOs exist, hostile or not?  The above statement is qualified by the words "by the Air Force."  In view of the way the Air Force conducts UFO investigations, as indicated by some of the examples cited earlier, the above statement seems to be safe enough for the Air  Force, since the Air Force can control the outcome of any investigation.  That is, if the Air Force says that a UFO sighting can be explained as a weather balloon, then they may also say that the weather balloon had no hostile intent..  The problem here is credibility.  Also one wonders why there is even the need to make a statement about intent, since the Air Force has long maintained that UFOs do not exist.  One might also ask why an Air Force aircraft would shoot at a UFO if there was no



   The second statement is:

  There has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as unidentified represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge.  

The Blue Book definition of UNIDENTIFIED is:

  A sighting is considered unidentified when a report apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of the report but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomenon. [23]  

   The Air Force statement admits that UNIDENTIFIED objects cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena.  The statement says that a report categorized as UNIDENTIFIED contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis.  It also says that the motion of the object cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena.  It seems strange, based on the above, that the Air Force can then say that sightings categorized as UNIDENTIFIED do not represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge.  It appears that the Air Force is saying, in effect, that even though the object cannot be correlated to anything known, it nevertheless does not exhibit any features that are unknown . . . a difficult exercise in logic.  Also, it is obvious that the Air Force



does not accept the numerous reports of ultra-high speed right angle turns performed by UFOs ... or do they?  In the official statement why is it necessary to say "Technological developments or principles . . .?"  Would not "developments" suffice?  One could suggest that use of the word "principle" has been included to enable semantic escape for the future.  The reason for this suggestion is that it is claimed by the Believers that UFOs are propelled by application of certain principles of magnetism.  It is true that modern science is aware of the existence of magnetism.  However, to date, it appears that Man has not been able to apply these principles to propulsion as exhibited by the flight characteristics of UFOs.  therefore, to say that UNIDENTIFIED objects do not exhibit any unknown principles could be partial truth . . . it is just that we have not discovered how to apply these principles.

   The third statement is:

  There has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as UNIDENTIFIED are extraterrestrial vehicles.  

There can be no argument with this statement, since the word "evidence" used in this Air Force statement is evidence as defined by the Air Force.  If the Air Force is



convinced that it has not received acceptable evidence, then it is pointless to argue the validity of eye witness reports as circumstantial but adequate.

   It can be seen that there are certain inscrutabilities in the Air Force credo.  From time to time, the Air Force tries to clarify its position, all the while clinging to its credo.  An article appeared in the July 1967 issue of "Airman" magazine, official magazine of the Air Force. [24]  The magazine is published monthly by the Internal Information Division, Directorate of Information, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force.  Although there is the usual official disclaimer, the editor of the magazine, in a note preceding the article on UFOs, states that the author has done admirably in presenting an article which tells the truth about UFOs and what the Air Force knows about them.  The article uses several of the ploys encountered in the Non-Believer literature.  It begins by citing examples of UFO reports which were subsequently definitely resolved as misidentification of common objects.  The reader is then to extrapolate these cases to the unknowns.  hoaxes are mentioned.  the planet Venus is mentioned.  The Air Force statistical listing is mentioned.  Many of the arguments against UFOs are presented. . . arguments which have become classic over the years.  there is



nothing new is presented in the article.  It is unfortunate that this particular article will be read by so many, from the pages of "Airman" magazine and from the special "True" magazine reproduction of the article. [25]  The author of the article has attempted to review years of complicated debate in five pages.  The article is offered as the "truth."  The author asks, "Are flying saucers fact or fiction?  What does the Air Force know about them?  Read on, and then form your own judgments."  Unfortunately, many readers will do just that.  Some of the most intensely debated aspects of the UFO problem are perfunctorily brushed aside.  How this is done in the article can be illustrated by the following statements in the article.  Note that the author does several things in this statement: ridicules the rationality of Believers; implies that the reader should not associate himself with the Believers (This is the "demented by association" ploy mentioned earlier);  presents a faulty analogy; exposes his own closed mind with reference to the possibility that science may progress beyond the Twentieth Century; leaves the questions unanswered; tries to cause the reader to come to an "obvious" conclusion which is incorrect.



  Why do not UFOs, which reportedly move at supersonic speeds, produce sonic booms?  An earth aircraft, or any solid object, always creates an audible "boom" when it exceeds the speed of sound.  Bullets produce a sonic boom!  Missiles cause a "boom" once they surpass the speed of sound!   However, not one of the thousands of reports received by the Air Force mentions any sonic boom associated with the reported UFO sighting.  How can UFOs defy Earth's gravity and perform erratic aerial maneuvers and square turns at supersonic speeds?  The pilots of our aircraft and space vehicles haven't been able to ignore the laws of gravity and motion!  

   The above statement illustrates the general tenor of the article.  It can be seen that when the author says, "read on, and then form your own judgments" that he has stacked the evidence in favor of the negative position.  No valid judgment can be made based on the article.  It is unfortunate that the writer of the article is either not familiar with the UFO literature or has chosen to ignore it.  there are several works which deal with the sonic boom, high speed and right angle turns. [26]  The author of the "Airman" magazine article might also find it illuminating to check on the status of government-sponsored anti-gravity research programs. [27]

   The rather transparent attempt by the Air Force to dissuade the public takes a shameless form in project Blue Book material.  As part of this material, the following items are included:



   1. A suggested reading material list which contains thirteen references.  Of the thirteen references, eight deal with astronomy; one with weather; one with optics; one with the space program, written by Von Braun, a Non-Believer; one written by Menzel, the classic intransigent Non-Believer; and one written by Jacques Valle, who reviews the history of UFO sightings.  Of the thirteen works cited, the book by Valle is the only one which leaves room for questioning the Air Force's negative approach.  The references to astronomy, weather, optics and the space program are not even relevant to the UFO debate.  Was the Air Force afraid to include pro-UFO literature?  Valle is not pro-UFO; he is neutral.  If a reader were to read every reference in the suggested reading list he would understand more about astronomy but would hardly see why the Air Force's position on UFOs is being challenged.

   2. An article entitled "Arriving from Mars by UFO?.  This article discusses the relative positions of Earth and Mars with reference to favorable periods for the launching of space vehicles from Mars to Earth.  It goes into several arethmetic discussions and concludes that:

  When one goes back to examine the direction from which the UFOs arrive, we find not a single case for the UFO coming in from the proper direction to indicate that it had originated on Mars or Venus.  



   Here we see an example of the refusal to consider that UFO technology may not be hampered by the limitations of our own embryo space program.  The presumptuousness of the conclusion is so gross as to be insulting to the intellect.

     3.  An interview with Werner Von Braun, in which he concludes by saying that he will not believe in UFOs until he sees one.

     4. A questionnaire that is to be completed by anyone seeing a meteor or fireball and then mailed to the American Meteor Society.

     Such an irrelevant, one-sided, transparent approach is demeaning to the United States Air Force.

                 The Current Situation

   The results of a recent Gallup poll [28], would seem to indicate that the Air Force is having limited success in dissuading the public.  According to the poll, there are more than five million Americans who are certain that they have seen flying saucers or other UFOs.  A more significant figure is the 46% of America adult who believe that UFOs are real.

   Such an indication of belief in UFOs is truly amazing when one considers the exotic nature of the subject and the Air Force's attempts to dissuade the public.  However,



the UFO problem has been with us for a long time, and some of the sensationalism has worn off.  The subject of UFOs has become a more acceptable topic of conversation.  Mass media are addressing the problem openly.  The ridicule index is down.  more and more reputable scientists are making statements which are more permissive and hint at the possibility that UFOs might exist.  Dr. Hynek has done much to reinforce the Believer position and weaken the Non-Believer position by his subtle shift away from the intransigent Non-Believers.  Also, the populace is aware that the Air Force has asked a University of Colorado team to study the problem.

   It appears that the citizenry is at least temporarily satisfied that the problem is being looked into.  Both the critics and the Air Force appear to have declared a truce while they await the results of the Colorado investigation, due for public release in 1968.

   The writer of this paper predicts a resumption of the debate with renewed fury upon release of the Colorado  recommendation.  The reason for this prediction is that in the fall of 1968, the recommendation as to whether or not the government should invest more money in UFO investigation is scheduled to be made by the Colorado team.  If the Colorado team recommends that the investigation be pursued, the Believers will feel vindicated and clamor



for information, and the Air Force will fell the brunt of the assault and will be placed on the defensive.  On the other hand, if the Colorado tem recommends no further investigation, this will incur the wrath of the Believers, who will not be convinced.  So, in either case, the debate will continue on some form.  It would appear to be advisable for the Air Force to prepare contingency plans for either eventuality.

   Confidence is apparently running high in some circles that UFOs are here to stay.  In an article in "Air Progress," [29]  Don Berliner states that civilian industry has been, and continues to be, interested in capitalizing on the technical aspects of UFO construction and propulsion and has been carrying on research projects aimed at solving such things as flight principles of a disc form and magnetic field propulsion.  At the end of his article he says,

  Numerous large corporations, sensing the research and development potential of UFO investigation, have quietly begun pilot projects aimed at cashing in on an expanded government financed study which would almost certainly follow any positive conclusion by the University of Colorado.  An example is the instrument loaded microbus now being prepared by a large West Coast aerospace firm, which hopes to get it to the site of a major wave of UFO sightings and get precise trackings and high quality photographs.  Additionally, there are billions of dollars waiting for the firm which first solves the puzzles of the UFO propulsion control and maneuverability.  



   This rather commercial approach to the UFO problem would seem to ignore the Air Force assurance that UFOs are natural phenomena, man-made objects, hallucinations, or hoaxes.


   It is really small wonder that the Air Force is being challenged.  Any private citizen, trying to understand the UFO debate, and researching the problem from materials available at a public library, will soon see that the manner in which the Air Force has handled this problem justifies the challenge.  The Air Force has suffered poor publicity, has given irrational answers to the public, has insulted the intelligence of the citizenry, has alienated many commercial pilots and scientists, has made careless mistakes, has become officious, has lost credibility, has been inconsistent, has refused to modify its basically irrelevant statistical approach to the problem and continues to insist that even the unknowns are probably explainable in terms of the familiar  Even Dr. Menzel, the anti-UFO stalwart, has criticized at least one of the Air Force "solutions".  Referring to the Air  Force determination that Gorman's UFO was really lights suspended from a balloon, Menzel says, "Of all possible explanations, the idea of balls of light suspended from



balloons could account for the observations is completely at variance with the reports.  I should rather accept the alternative that the objects were interplanetary saucers." [30]

   The frustration and anger felt by those who believe that the Air Force is mishandling the UFO problem has been succinctly, if emotionally, summed up by an author famous for his acrimonious attacks on the Air Force:

  Almost everybody else in the world agrees that where there is much smoke there must be some fire.  But not the Air Force.  To them we all have soot on our sun glasses and the moving disk we think we see are really drops of sweat.  Very simple fellows in the Air Force.  Too simple. [31]  





    The Air Force has for many years had a special office staffed for the handling or the UFO problem.   Many specialized disciplines have been called upon to assist in the analysis of UFO reports.  Large civilian organizations have been formed to investigate UFO reports.  There has been a congressional hearing on UFOs.  Letters on the subject of UFOs have been passed between the populace and the Air Force, the populace and members of congress, and the Air Force and members of congress.  Mass media have sponsored programs and published special issues on the UFO debate, Currently the UFO problem is being studied by a team from the University or Colorado.  Why does the interest and concern of the people and the government continue over the years at such a high level?  The key reason lies in the implications inherent in the UFO debate.

    For the next few pages the author will outline some of the major political, sociological and military implications associated with the existence of UFOs.  Unfortunately, even if UFOs do not exist as extraterrestrial space



vehicles, the implications of the debate have already been felt by the Air Force to the detriment of that service.  Irreparable damage has been suffered by the Air Force in the minds of a large segment of the population of this country because of the way that the Air Force has handled the UFO problem up to this point, as pointed out in Chapter III of this paper.

   One finds throughout the UFO literature charges, accusations and allegations of censorship and suppression aimed at the Air Force.  Usually the critics end their discussions with a plea for release of the information which the Air Force is supposedly concealing.  There is usually some statement to the effect that no matter how dire the implications, the sophisticated U.S. public, accustomed to a daily existence in a rather dire world, will be able to cope with the knowledge that other intelligent beings share the universe with us and have been visiting the Earth.  One wonders whether or not the public has really thought out some of the implications.  If the Air Force is under orders not to reveal what it knows about UFOs, maybe the implications give us a clue as to why this is so.

                Political Implications

   If UFOs are hostile, some of the implications might be:

       Demand for protection. Most likely, one of the first actions on the part of the populace after it has



had time to assess the situation would be to demand protection from hostile UFOs, The public would demand to know of the political leaders what they had done or are doing to protect the people of the nation.  Under the assumption that UFOs represent a technology far superior to our own, the answer would most likely be that programs are under consideration to study the problem, but no effective defense has yet been devised.  Such an announcement would be politically embarrassing, since UFOs have been with us for many years.  In a situation in which the populace felt threatened, and considering that most people would not understand the technical problems involved, such an announcement would be disadvantageous to the incumbent political party.

    Transfer of emphasis from current world problems to the international threat.  To that degree this would happen would depend on the nature of the UFO threat.  That is, if the hostility were moderate, only one or two isolated incidents. then the threat might serve only to add to the world's problems; on the other hand, if there were some significant and larger scale hostile operation then the emphasis would shift to one of immediacy.

     Change in international conflict status.  This effect would most likely follow any significant hostile action against the Earth at large.  Nations would soon recognize



a common threat to Man and might reassess their positions relative to international jealousies and conflicts.

   Demand for international unity. It is likely that the peoples of the world would lose interest in international conflicts and demand international unity to try to counter the common threat.

   Politically, any of the last three effects would be highly disruptive to the political status quo and to government programs and plans.

   Political implications if UFOs are benevolent;

   Assuming that the intelligence behind the UFOs began to take more than a passing interest in Earth society, and in consideration that this intelligence would probably be more advanced not only in technology but in other areas as well, some of the effects might be:

        Loss of allegiance; Existing political organizations might be hard pressed to maintain the allegiance of their people if extraterrestrial beings of a superior nature criticized the actions of the existing governments.

        Loss or sovereignty; International boundaries and traditional prerogatives or government may be lost.  Directions issued by an existing government would be subject to review by an authority which might be considered by the people to be wiser, and the people might be reluctant



to comply without the approval of this superior authority.

        Loss of confidence in government might be brought about by extraterrestrial disapproval of government operation.

        Modification or invalidation of national objectives; If national objectives were criticized by higher intelligences, governments might have to make a choice between a change of objectives or political chaos caused by dissension among the populace as to proper national objectives.

        Loss of national ego might result from decline of nationalism, and an enhancement of international spirit.

        Loss of national prestige: The loss or reduction or individual and national ego, the weakening of the potency of government dictates, a decrease in nationalistic pride, and the realization that Earth civilization is relatively retarded would probably result in a loss or reduction of national prestige throughout the world.

        Alteration of political systems; Revamping of entire concepts of government may result because of advice from superior beings, who could point out deficiencies and recommend better forms of government.



        Change in international power relationships:

         With a change in national objectives, possibly new forms of government and a shift in government priorities, power relationships may drastically change, since the new objectives may not be supported by the existing power structures.

        Political chicanery and deception: A remote possibility, but one which is not beyond the unprincipled, would be an attempt on the part of politicians to persuade the people that a certain course of action or program was recommended by the superior intelligences, when in fact it was not.

   The effects listed above are far-reaching, sweeping effects.  But one wonders if considerations such as outlined above have not been causing feelings of uneasiness in certain government quarters,

              Sociological Implications

    The political and military effects and responses have their foundations in the sociological implications, influences on the very core of the individual, . . his beliefs, his understanding of himself and his relationship to others... in short, his Man-oriented society.  An intrusion by extraterrestrial beings into this closed society may have the following effects on the human being.



     If UFOs are hostile;

          Initial shock and consternation; Active hostility on a significant scale by extraterrestrials would represent an event for which Man is ill-prepared.  He would need some time to realize the magnitude of the threat.  After realizing what this threat meant to Mankind, he would most likely be disoriented, since there is no historical precedent that he can call on to aid him in confronting the problem.  With time, Man would realize more and more what the implications were, and shock and consternation would grow into:

         Worldwide fear; localized panic; Classical panic would probably not occur except in the immediate vicinity of the hostile action, when it was realized that Man is powerless to defend himself effectively.  With worldwide communications, any hostile action of significance would become worldwide knowledge.  World-wide reaction, on an individual basis, would probably take the form of deep fear for the future of Man.  This reaction would probably not be immediate, but would slowly evolve, becoming more and more intense with realization.

         A turning to religion: on the face of the realization that Man would be, for all practical purposes, defenseless against hostile UFOs, there may be a turning to



religion for help and comfort.

         A change in human relationships:  There may be more cooperation among the peoples of the world and among people in the same nation, community and neighborhood as they join together to face a common threat and to commiserate with one another.   As General Douglas MacArthur said in the New York Times, October 9, 1955,

  The nations of the world will have to unite, for the next war will be an interplanetary war.  The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets.  

    Sociological implications if UFOs are benevolent:

        Again, initial shock and consternation:   Man would need time to sift out for himself what the appearance of extraterrestrial beings means to Man as an individual and as a society.  Once more, Man is ill-prepared to do this.  He would have to view flying saucers as some thing more than subjects for TV and comic strips.  He would most likely look to his government for guidance.  This guidance would be either non-existent or feeble and inadequate.

         Change in human relationships: As in the Case of hostility, people would probably grow closer together as they struggled to develop an understanding and modus vivendi under the new conditions.



         Loss or reduction of ego:  An encounter with superior beings, superior technology and superior understanding in all areas which Man considers important would act to deflate Man's high esteem for himself.  His accomplishments would appear rudimentary.

         Modification of the human value system:  Again, assuming that extraterrestrial beings took an active interest in the affairs of Man, certain ends pursued by Man as worthwhile objectives in life may be demonstrated convincingly to be either of limited value or worthless.  Man would then have the choice of continuing to pursue objectives which were demonstrated to be false, or of modifying his value system.

         Decrease in status of scientists and world technology:  As in the case with loss or reduction of ego, world technology and the scientific community which promotes it would lose some of its luster in the face of superior technology and understanding of the workings of natural laws and their application.  This factor may be the basis, in part, for the too frequent reluctance of scientists to look too deeply into the UFO problem.  There is the chance that the UFOs will not become actively involved with Earth society.  If scientists can debunk UFOs with moderate success, and if the involvement of UFOs with our society remains as it has over the last few years, then the scientists stand a fair chance of retaining their esteem.



         Turmoil in world religions:  Religious concepts based on the notion that Man holds a special and exclusive place in the Master Plan will have to be re-evaluated, not because of the special place of Man, but because of the idea of exclusivity.  Such re-evaluation will revitalize religion because of a better understanding of concepts presently misunderstood.

         Transfer of allegiance from traditional religions to the philosophy and religion of the extraterrestrials:  While the traditional religions are undergoing a reassessment, and assuming that the extraterrestrial beings are advanced over Man in spiritual development, there will most likely be a shift in allegiance from the traditional religions to that of the extraterrestrials.  The hunger for spiritual answers and the inability or traditional religion to convincingly provide the answers is legendary.  Any religion which makes Man's purpose clear and which can provide answers to his questions will gain a large following.

                 Military Implications

   Since the Air Force is charged with the responsibility for assuring the security of the skies over the United States, it is understandable that intrusion into U.S. air space by strange air vehicles at any place and



at any time would cause considerable Air Force nervousness.  Although there have been instances in which these strange vehicles have been pursued and fire upon by Air Force aircraft (See Chapter III), the Air Force claims that it has no physical evidence of the existence of these vehicles. This is a declaration of the impotence of the Air Force against these craft.  However, the Air Force should not feel that it is remiss in providing air security for the nation.  The Wright brothers would have had little success in convincing an F-4 pilot that he should be escorted to the nearest airfield.

   There are two very significant problems confronting Earth technology today, assuming a military threat from the UFOs.  First, forces in being are demonstrably inadequate to cope with any such threat. This inadequacy is reflected both in the passive role of detection and tracking and also in the active role of offense action.  Detection by radar is thwarted by a combination of small radar cross-section, high speed, and ability to stop while in flight.  Assuming that the reflective surface were sufficient to give a good return, high speed and an erratic flight path would make it virtually impossible to effectively pass the track through the radar network or individual radar stations.  Any radar station working on the ballistic



trajectory principle, or equipped with moving target indicator (MTI) circuitry would be confounded by the erratic flight and the ability of the space vehicles to come to a stop in flight.  In the case of MTI, the UFO would appear to disappear from the scope when it stopped moving.

   Even assuming that a UFO could be detected and tracked, we have nothing in the inventory, aircraft or missile, that is capable or coping with the UFO.  Ultra-high speed, angular maneuvers and unlimited ceiling assure the UFO's ability to elude any intercepting weapon, provided that the UFO is able to detect an attack.  The detection capability of UFOs is not discussed in the literature available to the public.

   The second major problem confronting Earth technology is the matter of lead time, both in the laboratory and on the production line.  If we assume that at some point in time we are able to determine the vulnerabilities of the UFO , we must then translate this understanding into a defensive weapon system. It would appear from the descriptions of the behavior of these vehicles that they employ principles which are rather exotic, in terms of Man's understanding of physical laws.  If this is so, it will be no mean task to understand these principles sufficiently to be able to design a counter weapon, to



produce that weapon, and then to deploy a system to the field.  In such a situation, the time lapse is reckoned in years.  We may not have sufficient time to develop such a defensive weapon, even assurance that we had enough information to begin with.

   If the UFOs are not hostile, and if they are benevolent, then the problem is not a technical one; it is more an ego problem and a human relations problem.  Military ego would suffer a severe setback in the face of just one public demonstration of the capabilities of a disc.  The impotence of the military establishment to cope with the UFOs would be manifestly apparent to all.  Military weaponry and tactics would appear obsolete overnight.  In addition to the blow to military prestige, a far more significant effect could be felt by military establishments world-wide.  If the extraterrestrial beings suggested that war between nations was not a valid method for the resolution of international conflicts, and if they could demonstrate an alternative and offer guidance. military forces would gradually fall into disrepute and the world would probably see the eventual dissolution of military establishments world-wide.


    Any reader would be able to think of almost an infinite number of implications in economics, industry,



the arts . . . across the whole spectrum of human activity.  The point is that we should be thinking about all these implications so that we can be better prepared for the day when we might be confronted with an overt approach on the part of extraterrestrials.  The other nagging question is the matter of intent. If we could determine intent this would be a start towards psychological adjustment and possible accommodation, whether the intent be hostile or benevolent.

   It can be seen that if the question of implications is explored fully, one gains an appreciation of Dr. Hynek's statement that "Mankind may be in for the greatest adventure since dawning human intelligence turned outward to contemplate the universe.

   Also, one can begin to appreciate why the Believers have been so unkind to the Air Force.  They feel that any knowledge which the Air Force may be withholding is rightfully the property of mankind, and not the exclusive property of any one military or political organization.

   The thought arises, or course, that in view of the implications, maybe release of all information on UFOs would herald the beginning of the dissolution of the world as we have come to know it.  For some, this may be unacceptable, and as was pointed out earlier, if the UFOs have only a casual interest in Earth and do not plan to involve themselves with mankind, then maybe some of the problems are only academic.





   It is once more pointed out that if the Air Force is handling the UFO problem properly, in view of the seriousness of the implications, nevertheless, the interested researcher is left with the impression that either the Air Force investigation has been inept or some important information is being purposely withheld, giving rise to the many curious statements made by the Air Force as it tries as best it can to assuage the public, while withholding the truth.

   Based on an exhaustive review of the literature available to the public, the writer of this paper comes to the following conclusions:

   1. Many objects reported as UFOs are misidentifications of natural phenomena or man-made
   2. Many objects reported as UFOs are space vehicles.
       a. These vehicles originate extraterrestrially.
       b. These vehicles are controlled by some intelligence either on board the vehicles or at some
           extraterrestrial location remote from the vehicles.



       c. The space technology or the extraterrestrial intelligence is far superior to ours.
       d. It is likely that contact has been made with Man on an individual and covert basis.
       e. It is not known why overt contact with Man has not been made.
       f. The intent of the extraterrestrial beings is not known.
   3. The implications for the world in the existence of UFOs is presently significant, and will become
       even more significant if overt contact is made.
   4. The Air Force has been inept in its handling of the UFO problem.
   5. The Air Force has lost some of its esteem in the eyes of a large segment of the U.S. population
       because of the manner in which the Air Force has handled the UFO problem.
   6. Defense of the anti-UFO position has been weak.  Charges and allegations against the Air
       Force have not been satisfactorily answered.
   7. The gravity of the implications for mankind in the existence of UFOs may be the root cause for
       the puzzling official pronouncements and approach to the problem.




   1. Conduct an open congressional hearing with the Air Force, NICAP, APRO and the University
       of Colorado represented.  Conduct this open hearing upon completion of the current initial
       study being conducted by the University of Colorado, even if results show that further study is
   2. If it is considered inadvisable to conduct an open hearing because of the implications, then:
       a. Quietly call in members of NICAP and enlist their cooperation.  Explain current status and
           implications, and have NICAP contact key people in APRO.
       b. Disband Project Blue Book.
       c. Establish a nationwide official UFO investigative organization independent of the Air Force. 
           Staff this organization with a broad spectrum of experts.  Train all investigators.  The
           disbanding of Project Blue Book and the establishment of the investigative organization
           should be done without fanfare.  These actions might be justified as a reorganization in order
           to provide a more detailed, prompt investigation of reports by citizens.
   3. The United States government should prepare contingency plans for contact with UFOs (hostile
       and benevolent).



   4. After establishment of the new investigative organization, the United States should actively try 
       to establish contact with the UFOs and determine motive.  Attempts at contact should not be
       provocative or aggressive.




Chapter II

    1.  Brad Steiger and Joan Writenour, "Flying Saucers Are Hostile" (New York: Universal Publishing and Distributing Corp.,l967), p. 66.

    2.  Malcom Kent, "The Terror Above Us" (New York: Tower Publications, 1967, p. 15.

    3.  Steiger, op. cit., p. 10.

    4.  Ibid., p. 12.

    5.  Edward J. Ruppelt, "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects" (New York: Doubleday and Co. Inc., 1956), p. 51.

    6.  Donald E. Keyhoe, "The Flying Saucer Conspiracy" (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1955), p. 288.

    7.  Coral Lorenzen, "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax" (New York; William-Frederick Press, 1962), p. 32.

    8.  Coral and Jim Lorenzen, "Flying Saucer Occupants" (New York: The New American Library, Inc., 1967), p. 42.

    9.  John G. Fuller, "The Interrupted Journey" (New York: Dial Press, 1966).

    10.  Lorenzen, "Flying Saucer Occupants,"  p. 116.

    11.  Frank Edwards, "Flying Saucers Serious Business" (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1966), p. 167.

    12.  Ibid., p. 170 and Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 119.



    13.  John G. Fuller, "Incident at Exeter" (New York: Putnam, 1966), p. 203 and Edwards, op. cit., p. 142 and Steiger, op. cit., p. 69.

    14.  Steiger, op. cit., p. 10.

    15.  Keyhoe, op. cit., p. 38.

    16.  Vincent H. Gaddis, "Mysterious Fires and Lights" (New York; David McKay Co. Inc., 1967), p. 11 and Steiger op. cit., p. 153.

    17.  Fuller, "The Interrupted Journey".

    18.  George Adamski, "Inside the Flying Saucers!" (New York: Paperback Library, Inc., 1967), p. 66.

    19.  Ibid., P. 69.

    20.  Ibid., p. 59 and 69.

    21.  Frank Skully, "Behind the Flying Saucers" (New York: Holt, 1950), p. 52.

    22.  Adamski, op. cit., p. 70 and 7l.

    23.  Jacques Vallee, "Anatomy of a Phenomenon" (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1965), p. 167.

    24.  Ibid., p. 148.

    25.  Cleve Mitchell, "The UFO Saga" (Lakemont, Georgia:CSA Press, 1966), p. 84.

    26.  Ibid., p. 84.

    27.  Adamski, op. cit., p, 64.

    28.  Ibid., p. 35.

    29.  George Adamski and Desmond Leslie, "Flying Saucers Have Landed" (New York; The British Book Centre, 1953), facing p. 192.

    30.  Richard H. Hall, "The UFO Evidence" (Washington, D. C.: NICAP, 1964).

    31.  "The APRO Bulletin" (Tucson, Arizona)



    32.  Gaddis, op. cit., p. 9.

    33.  Ibid.

    34.  "A Fresh Look at Flying Saucers", Time (August 4, 1967), p. 32 and Lorenzen, "Flying Saucer Occupants", p. 164.

    35.  "Flying Saucers", (Special Issue by Look Magazine), (New York: Cowles Communications, Inc., 1967), p. 59.

    36.  Fuller, "Incident at Exeter", p. 221.

    37.  "Hearing on Unidentified Flying Objects", Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, 1966, Hereafter cited as "Hearing on UFOs".

    38.  Ruppelt, loc. cit.

    39.  Ibid.

    40.  Ibid., p. 13.

    41.  Ibid., p. 314.

    42.  Ibid., p. 8.

    43.  Ibid., p. 315.

    44.  "Hearing on UFOs", op. cit., p. 6006.

    45.  J. Allen Hynek "The UFO Gap", Playboy, Vol. 14, No. 12 (December 1967), P. 146.

    46.  J. Allen Hynek, in a letter to "Science" magazine, (1 August, 1966).

    47.  "Hearing on UFOs", op. cit., p. 6007.

    48.  Hynek, "Science".

    49.  Hynek, "Playboy", p. 270.

    50.  "Hearing on UFOs", op. cit., p. 6007.

    51.  Hynek, "Science".

    52.  Hynek, "Playboy", p. 271.



    53.  Carl Sagan "Unidentified Flying Objects", (an article copyrighted in 1963 by The Encyclopedia Americana; reprinted for private circulation), p. 5.

    54.  Edwards, op. cit., p. 112.

    55.  Graham Berry, "Those Mysterious Signals from Outer Space", Los Angeles Times West Magazine, (January 8, 1967), p. 27.

    56.  Fuller, "Incident at Exeter".

    57.  Fuller, "The Interrupted Journey".

    58.  Fuller, "Incident at Exeter", p. 193.

    59.  Time

    60.  Hearing on UFOs, loc. cit.

    61.  Donald H. Menzel, "Flying Saucers" (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1953).

    62.  Lawrence J. Tacker, "Flying Saucers and the USAF"(New York; Van Nostrand, 1960).

    63.  Menzel, op. cit.

    64.  Ibid., p. 18.

    65.  Ibid., p. 19.

    66.  Ibid., p. 17.

    67.  Ibid., p. 19.

    68.  Ibid., p. 125.

    69.  Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 133.

    70.  Menzel, op. cit., p. 38.

    71.  Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 133.

    72.  Menzel, op. cit., p. 283.

    73.  Tacker, loc. cit.

    74.  Ibid., p. 8



    75.  Ibid., p. 10.

    76.  Lorenzen, "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax", p. 188.

    77.  Ibid., p. 159.

Chapter III

    1.  Project Blue Book, 1 March, 1967, p. 4.-

    2.  Tacker, op. cit., p. 12.

    3.  Ibid., p. 13.

    4.  Ibid., p. 17.

    5.  Ibid., p. 13.

    6.  Hynek, Playboy, p. 146.

    7.  Tacker, op. cit., p. 83.

    8.  Edwards, op. cit., p. 179 and Edward J. Babcock and Timothy Green Beckly, "UFO Plagues Now Jersey Reservoir" Fate, October 1966, Vol. 19, No. 10, Issue 199, p. 34.

    9.  Mort Young, "UFO Top Secret" (New York; Essandess Special Editions, 1967), p. 101.

    10.  Ibid., p. 102 and Edwards, op. cit., p. 167.

    11.  Project Blue Book, op. cit., p. 1.

    12.  Yale Scientific Magazine, (Yale University,Vol. XXXVII, No. 7, April 1963).

    13.  Keyhoe, "The Flying Saucer Conspiracy".

    14.  Donald E. Keyhoe, "Flying Saucers Top Secret" (New York; Putnam's Sons, 1960).

    15.  Ibid., p. 155.

    16.  Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 62.

    17.  Kehoe, "Flying Saucers Top Secret", p. 164.



    18.  Tacker, op. cit., p. 83.

    19.  Ruppelt, op. cit., p. 62.

    20.  Edwards, op. cit., p. 140.

    21.  Project Blue Book, op. cit., p. 4.

    22.  Keyhoe, "Flying Saucers Top Secret", p. 100.

    23.  Project Blue Book, op. cit., p. 2.

    24.  George W. Ogles, major, USAF, "What Does the Air Force Really Know About Flying Saucers?", The Airman, Vol. XI, No. 7, July 1967, (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 4.

    25.  George W. Ogles, Major, USAF, "Air Force Takes the Stand: 'Just the Facts, Sir' " The New Report on Flying Saucers by the Publishers of True, No. 2, 1967 (Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1967), p. 4.

    26.  Leonard G. Cramp, "Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer (New York: British Book Centre, 1955) and Keyhoe, "The Flying Saucer Conspiracy", p. 247 and Skully, loc. cit. and Michael Aime, "Flying Saucers and the Straight Line" (New York: Criterion Books, 1958).

    27.  Edwards, op. cit., p. 127.

    28.  Time, op. cit., p. 32

    29.  Don Berliner, "The UFO from the Designer's View-point", Air Progress, Vol. 21, No. 4, October 1967, p. 72.

    30.  Menzel, op. cit., p. 18.

    31.  Skully, op. cit., p. 186.




    As was pointed out in Chapter II of this paper, it is apparent, after review of UFO sighting reports contained throughout the literature, no matter what the particular persuasion of the author, that there are certain consistencies in these sightings, regardless of the stand which has, at least in the past, been taken by Project Blue Book (Special Report #14). These consistencies are tabulated below.

    If it is felt that within any category of characteristics there is too much diversity, the author suggests that these differences are no greater than those which exist between a helicopter and a commercial jet aircraft.   There are many reports of elongated, cigar-shaped objects, thought by some authors to be what is termed a "mother ship" i.e., a much larger vehicle which usually does not land, but hovers near the area where the disc-shaped objects descend to lower altitudes or land.  It has been theorized that master control over the disc shaped objects may be exerted from the "mother ship", regardless of whether or not the discs are remotely controlled from the "mother ship" or carry intelligent beings



on board.  A modification of this theory suggests an aircraft carrier type role for the "mother ship", i.e., the "mother ship" transports the discs across the expanse of interplanetary space and discharges the discs upon reaching the near environment of the Earth.  The cigar-shaped vehicles have been reported to be immense objects...  .approximating the length of a football field.   Several other shapes have been reported: bell-shaped triangular, egg-shaped, rectangular.....but these shapes are in the minority.

   The characteristics and effects outlined on the next page are applicable to the classic disc-shaped object, by far the most commonly reported.  This is the "flying saucer" model.  The Believer literature usually ascribes a scouting, probing, investigation, reconnaissance, function to this type of object.



     Typical UFO Characteristics and Effects

Physical Characteristics:

    Size:   From two feet in diameter to over 100 feet in diameter.

    Shape:  Circular; disc-shaped; like two saucers, one inverted over the other.  The center of the disc is thicker than the edges, which may be sharp or blunt.

    Color:  Daytime:  Brilliant silver color with a sheen.

            Nighttime:  Intense white light.  May also be orange, red, green, blue.  Many reports indicate a gradual change of color as maneuvers change, i.e., disc may be dull orange while hovering and change through brilliant orange to red to white as the disc moves progressively faster in a horizontal or vertical direction.  The light is usually described as extremely intense and pulsating.


            Material:  Metal- pure magnesium. (Incidentally, Coral Lorenzen, of APRO, claims she had a sample of this material analyzed.  Her report, with several spectrographic tables and discussion, appears in her book, "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax", p. 89)

            Landing Gear: Tripod ball bearings; or tripod extensions with flat or wedge-shaped plates at the end of each of the three "legs".

            Access:  Through a panel usually on the underside of the vehicle.  Panel opens and closes silently and smoothly.  When closed, the fit with the vehicle body is so precise that seams cannot be detected.



            Exterior Features:  Antenna-like projection is frequently reported.  Center of disc frequently has a cupola.  May have running lights and port holes.

            Interior Features:  Extremely bright "burnished aluminum" appearing walls.  Compartments in the shape of a pie wedge, with the point or the wedge joining a central column.  Doors fit without seams.  May have more than one level.  Lighted instrument panels; star charts ( See "The Interrupted Journey", J. G. Fuller). Source of light is not apparent, "seems to come from everywhere."

Flight Characteristics:

    Speed: 0 (hover) to 5000 MPH or greater.

    Maneuverability:  Hover; vertical ascents vertical descent; horizontal.  High speed departure from Earth surface is usually on a slant.  Ability to change from hover to high speed is instantaneous; ability to stop from high speed movement is instantaneous; right angle turns at high speed are common.

    Special Flight Characteristics: The discs are usually seen to "wobble" at low speeds (instability?).  At night, while hovering, the light emitted by the disc is usually reported to "pulsate".

   Propulsion: Propelled through application of principles of magnetism as yet not understood by Man.  (Navigation is theorized to be based on a comprehensive understanding of magnetic fields in space....therefore the concern that Man may alter the relationships by his nuclear explosions in space.)  The power system is absolutely silent or may hum much like an electrical transformer.  A high pitched, intense hum or whine is often reported.

   Effect on Immediate Vicinity:

    Electrical Systems:  Disruption.  Lights go out; auto ignitions fail.  Some authors theorize that the recent power blackouts were caused by UFO experimentation.



   Radioactivity:  Low to high readings on radioactivity detection instruments.

   Human Beings:  No effect, to tingling sensation, to paralysis, to burns on flesh.  Some cases of involuntary compliance with unspoken orders from space beings.

   Animals: Horses panic; dogs cower; insects and frogs stop chirping.  These occurrences are reported many times to have been the reason for the observer leaving his house to investigate, and once outside, then seeing the UFO.  (See "The Interrupted Journey" for a description of the effect on a dog.)

   Vegetation: Matted grass; burned grass and bushes in the vicinity of a landing.

   Other:  Many reports of strong metallic odor, some to the point of causing nausea, in the immediate vicinity of the UFO.




       Extracted from Project Blue Book material distributed to Air Force base UFO officers at a meeting at the University of Colorado on 12 June 1967.

(Compiled 15 Feb 67)

1947 122 12 Case Files
1948 156 7 Case Files
1949 186 22 BlueBook, Page 108
1950 210 27 Case Files
1951 169 22 Case Files
1952 1,501 303 BlueBook, Page 108
1953 509 42 Case Files
1954 487 46 Case Files
1955 505 24 Case Files
1956 670 14 Case Files
1957 1,006 14 Case Files
1958 627 10 Case Files
1959 390 12 Case Files
1960 557 14 Case Files
1961 591 13 Case Files
1962 474 15 Case Files
1963 399 14 Case Files
1964 562 19 Case Files
1965 887 16 Case Files
1966 1,060 30 Case Files
TOTAL 11,108 676




(Compiled 15 Feb 67)


Astronomical 175 137 135 222 341 231 144 235 203 136 85 123 250 2417
Aircraft 73 80 124 148 218 106 63 66 77 68 73 71 222 1389
Balloon 78 63 102 93 114 58 31 22 37 19 28 20 36 701
Insuff Data 79 103 95 132 191 111 65 105 115 94 59 99 85 1333
Other 62 58 65 61 120 93 75 94 77 65 58 88 126 1042
Satellite 0 0 0 0 8 18 0 21 69 77 82 142 152 569
Unidentified 42


Meteors 70 92 79 88 179 168 100 187 119 95 57 61 101 1396
Stars/Planets 101 44 52 131 144 56 40 45 78 36 23 55 140  945


175 137 135 222 341 231 144 235 203 136 85 123 250 2417


Hoaxes, Hallucinations,
Unreliable Reports and
Psychological Causes 15 6 18 16 37 29 14 13 17 11 16 34 34 260
Missiles and Rockets 2 1 1 3 2 6 14 12 13 9 13 7 10 93
Reflections 4 6 4 3 2 7 11 9 3 3 0 2 7 61
Flares and Fireworks 1 4 8 6 8 3 5 7 4 3 3 7 4 63
Mirages and Inversions 3 2 4 1 5 2 4 5 6 3 0 2 5 42
Search and Groundlights 9 6 14 9 12 8 5 6 1 3 2 6 9 90
Clouds and Contrails 6 3 2 1 9 5 3 4 5 4 5 0 3 50
Chaff 0 2 0 1 2 6 1 4 3 5 2 1 1 28
Birds 4 7 2 6 1 1 0 3 2 2 2 4 11 45
Radar Analysis 15 7 1 8 27 3 8 6 9 0 1 2 3 90
Photo Analysis 1 1 2 4 1 7 4 6 3 2 3 6 6 46
Physical Specimens 1 6 5 3 5 10 3 7 4 15 3 8 12 82
Satellite Decay 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 3 3 3 4 8 31


62 58 65 61 120 93 75 94 77 65 58 88 126 1042




Astronomical 14 8 44 47 15 12 20 20 12 38 21 4 255
Aircraft 8 4 32 42 31 26 29 28 14 24 22 10 270
Balloon 0 0 2 5 3 2 7 4 2 5 1 1 32
Insuff Data 8 3 34 27 30 22 19 19 19 34 21 6 242
Other 5 1 19 15 7 5 10 5 7 9 8 3 94
Satellite 2 0 32 5 12 21 5 23 5 11 2 1 109
Unidentified 1 2 5 2 1 4 3 3 4 3 1 1 30


38 18 158 143 99 92 93 104 67 126 82 40 1060



Meteors 8 1 8 19 5 3 10 7 4 8 8 2 83
Stars/Planets 4 6 32 23 7 8 9 10 7 29 12 2 149



14 8 44 47 15 12 2 20 12 38 21 4 255

(a) moon (b) unusual sunset (c) unusual meteorological condition


Hoaxes,Conf.Psy 2 1 6 3 2 2 2 1 3 4 3   29
Missiles/Rockets                 1   1   2
Search/Gd Lights     1 1 3   2 1   1   1 10
Flares/Fireworks       1       1     1 1 4
Reflections       3 1 2 1       2   9
Clouds/Contrails 2   3         1p 2p     1p 9
Birds     1 4 1         2 1   9
Radar Analysis                 1n       1
Physical Specimen       1f     2st 1f       2st 4
Satellite Decay  1   1                   2
Photo Analysis     5bcdei 2ge     2c     1q     10






5 1 19 15 7 5 10 5 7 9 8 3 94

(a) swamp gas (b) stellar image (c) no image (d) insuff data (e) processing defect (f) chaff
(g) electric light (h) blown transformer (i) lighthouse (j) plasma (n) anamalous propagation
(p) artificial cloud release (q) time exposure of moon reported to be UFO (r) electric wires
sparking (s) indentations in ground, and soil samples (t) unknown animal





    Those interested in a relatively rapid survey of the salient points and the various positions and arguments in the UFO debate will find that the following publications will provide a good understanding of the problem across the spectrum.

   Ultra Group (Hostile):

        Steiger, Brad and Writenour, Joan. "Flying Saucers Are Hostile". New York; Universal
         Publishing and Distributing Corporation, 1967.

    Ultra Group (Benevolent):

        Adamski, George. "Inside the Space Ships", New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955.

    The Normal Believers:

        Aime' Michael. "The Truth About Flying Saucers", New York: Criterion Books, 1956.

        Hall, Richard H. "The UFO Evidence", Washington, D.C., NICAP, 1964.

        Keyhoe, Donald E. "Flying Saucers: TOP SECRET", New York: Putnam, 1960.

        Lorenzen, Coral. "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax", New York; William-Frederick Press,

        Vallee, Jacques. "Anatomy of a Phenomenon", Chicago; Regnery, 1965.



[ CUFON NOTE: Pages 110 and 111 were not sent along with the rest of the thesis from Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. ]

Pages 112 - 120 consist of a copy of the portion of Air Force  Regulation 80-17(C1), Attachment 1.  (AF Form 117 Aug 67)  is the (blank) "Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena Questionnaire." 

Click below for images of the Questionnaire pages

Pg1. Pg.2 Pg.3 Pg.4 Pg.5 Pg.6 Pg.7 Pg.8 Pg.9



Washington, D.C. 19 September 1966
Research and Development

This regulation establishes the Air Force program for investigating and analyzing UFOs over the United States.  It provides for uniform investigative procedures and release of information.  The investigations and analyses prescribed are related directly to the Air Force's responsibility for the air defense of the United States.  The UFO Program requires prompt reporting and rapid evaluation of data for successful identification.  Strict compliance with this regulation is mandatory.



Explanation of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    1
Program Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    2
Program Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    3


Response to Public Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     4
Releasing Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     5


General Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    6
Guidance in Preparing Reports  . . . . . . . . . . . . .    7
Transmittal of Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    8
Negative or Inapplicable Information . . . . . . . . .    9
Comments of Investigating Officer . . . . . . . . . . .  10
Basic Reporting Data and Format . . . . . . . . . . .   11
Reporting Physical Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   12


1. Explanation of Terms.  To insure proper and uniform usage of terms in UFO investigations, reports and analyses, an explanation of common terms follows:

   a. Unidentified Flying Objects.  Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears
       out of the ordinary to the observer.

   b. Familiar or Known Objects/Phenomena.  Aircraft, aircraft lights, astronomical bodies 
       (meteors, planets, stars, comets, sun, moon), balloons, birds fireworks, missiles, rockets,
       satellites, weather phenomena (clouds, contrails, dust devils), and other natural phenomena.

2. Program Objectives.  Air Force interest in UFOs is two-fold: to determine if the UFO is a
    possible threat to the United states and to use the scientific and technical data gained from
    study of UFO reports.  To attain these objectives, it is necessary to explain or identify the
    stimulus which caused the observer to report his observation as an unidentified flying object.

   a. Air Defense.  The majority of UFOs reported to the Air Force have been conventional or
       familiar objects which pose no threat to our security.

      (1) It may be possible that foreign countries may develop flying vehicles of revolutionary
           configuration or propulsion.

      (2) Frequently, some alleged UFOs are determined to be aircraft.  Air Defense Command
           (ADC) is responsible for identification of aircraft. 


This Regulation supersedes AFR 200-2, 20 July 1962



          Except as aircraft are determined to be the stimulus for a UFO report, aircraft are not to be
          reported under the provisions of this regulation.

   b. Technical and Scientific.  The Air Force will analyze reports of UFOs submitted to it to attain
       the program objectives.  In this connection these facts are of importance:

      (1) The need for further scientific knowledge in geophysics, astronomy and physics of the
           upper atmosphere which may be provided by study and analysis of UFOs and similar
           aerial phenomena.

      (2) The need to report all pertinent factors that have a direct bearing on scientific analysis and
            conclusions of UFO sightings.

      (3) The need and the importance of complete case information.  Analysis has explained all
            but a small percentage of the sightings which have been reported to the Air Force.  The
            ones that have not been explained are carried statistically as "unidentified."  Because of
            the human factors involved and because of analysis of a UFO sightings depends on a
            personal interpretation  by the observer rather than on scientific data or facts obtained
            under controlled conditions, the elimination of all unidentifieds is improbable.  However, if
            more immediate, detailed and objective data on the unidentifieds that have been available
            and promptly reported, perhaps these too, could have been identified.

3. Program Responsibilities:

   a. Program Monitor.  The Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development, is responsible for
       the overall program, evaluation of investigative procedures, and the conduct of separate
       scientific investigations.

   b. Resources.  The Air Force Systems Command will support the program with current 
       resources within the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) at Wright-Patterson Air Force
       Base, Ohio, to continue Blue Book effort.  Other AFSC resources normally used by FTD for
       this effort will continue to be made available.

   c. Investigation.  Each commander of an Air Force Base will provide a UFO investigative
       capability.  When notice of a UFO sighting is received, an investigation will be implemented
       to determine if the stimulus for the sighting.  An Air Force base receiving the notice of a UFO
       sighting may not be the base nearest the locale of the sighting.  In that event, the reported
       UFO sighting will be referred to the Air Force base nearest the sighting for action.

    EXCEPTIONS: FTD at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, independently or with the
        help of pertinent Air Force activities, may conduct any other investigation to conclude its
        analysis or findings.  HQ USAF may arrange for separate investigations.

   d. Analysis.  FTD will:

      (1) Analyze and evaluate all information and evidence reported to bases on those UFOs
            which are not identified at the base level.

      (2) Use other Government agencies, private industrial companies, and contractor personnel to
           assist in analyzing and evaluating UFO reports as necessary.

   e. Findings.  FTD, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, will prepare a final case report on each
       sighting reported to it after the data have been properly evaluated.  If the final report is
       deemed significant, FTD will send the report of its findings to AFSC (SFCA), Andrews
       AFB, Wash D.C. 20331, which will send a report to HQ USAF  (AFRDC),  Wash D.C.

   f. Cooperation.  All Air Force activities will cooperate with UFO investigators to insure that
      pertinent information relative to investigations of UFO are promptly obtained.  When feasible,
      this will include furnishing air or ground transportation and other assistance.


4. Response to Public Interest.  The Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Information (SAF-OI), maintains contact with the public and the news media on all aspects of the UFO program and related activities.  Private individuals or organizations desiring Air Force interviews, briefings or lectures, or private discussions on UFOs will be instructed to direct their requests to SAF-OI.  Air Force members not officially connected with UFO investigations covered by this regulation will refrain from any action or comment on UFO reports which may mislead or cause the public to construe these opinions as official Air Force findings.

5. Releasing Information.  SAF-OI is the agency responsible for releasing information  to the public and to the news media.

   a. Congressional and Presidential Inquiries.  The Office of Legislative Liaison will:

      (1) With the assistance of SAF-OI,



           answer all Congressional and Presidential queries regarding UFOs forwarded to the Air

      (2) Process requests from Congressional sources in accordance with AFR 11-7.

   b. SAF-OI will:

      (1) Respond to correspondence from individuals requesting information on the UFO program
           and evaluations of sightings.

      (2) Release information on UFO sightings and results of investigations to the general public.

      (3) Send correspondence queries which are purely technical and scientific to FTD for
           information on which to base a reply.

   c. Exceptions.  In response to local inquiries regarding UFOs reported in the vicinity of an Air
       Force Base, the base commander may release information to the news media or the public
       after the sighting has been positively identified.  If the stimulus for the sighting is difficult to
       identify at the base level, the commander may state that the  sighting is under investigation and
       conclusions will be released by SAF-OI after the investigation is completed.  The
       commander may also state that the Air force will review and analyze the results of the
       investigation.  Any further inquiries will be directed to SAF-OI.


6. General Information:

   a. The Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development, USAF and the ADC have a directed
       immediate interest in UFOs reported within the US.  All Air Force activities will conduct
       UFO investigations to the extent necessary for reporting action (see paragraphs 9, 10, 11,
       and 12).  Investigation may be carried beyond this point  when the preparing officer believes
       the scientific or public relations aspect of the case warrants further investigation.  In this case,
       the investigator will coordinate his investigation with FTD.

   b. Paragraph 7 will be used as a guide for screenings and reportings.  Paragraph 11 is an outline
       of the reporting format.

   c. Inquiries should be directed to SAF-OI (see paragraph 5)

   d. If possible, an individual selected as a UFO investigator should have a scientific or technical
       background and experience as an investigator.

   e. Reports required by this regulation are excluded from assignment of a reports control symbol
       in accordance with paragraph 3k, AFR 300-5.

7. Guidance in Preparing Reports.  The usefulness of a UFO report depends largely on accuracy, timeliness, skill and resourcefulness of the person who receives the initial information and makes the report.  Following are aids for screening, evaluating and reporting sightings:

   a. Activities receiving initial reports of aerial objects and phenomena will screen the information
       to determine if the report concerns a valid UFO as defined in paragraph 1a.  Reports not
       falling within that definition do not require further action.  Aircraft flares, jet exhausts,
       condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and
       airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the
       definition of a UFO.

   EXCEPTION: Reports of known objects will be made to FTD when this information originally
       had been reported by local news media as a UFO and the witness has contacted the Air
       Force.  (Do NOT solicit reports.)  News releases should be included as an attachment with
       the report (see paragraph 8c)

   b. Detailed study will be made of the logic, consistency, and authenticity of the observer's
       report.  An interview with the observer by persons preparing the report, is especially valuable
       in determining the reliability of the source and the validity of the information.  Factors for
       particular attention are the observer's age, occupation, and education, and whether he has a
       technical or scientific background.  A report that a witness is completely familiar with certain
       aspects of a sighting should indicate specific qualifications to substantiate such familiarity.

   c. The following procedures will assist the investigation officer in completing the report and
       arriving at conclusion as required in paragraph 11.

      (1) When feasible, contact local aircraft control and warning (ACW) units, and pilots and
            crews of aircraft aloft at the time and place of the sighting.  Contact any persons or
            organizations that may have additional data on the UFO or can verify evidence - visual,
            electronic, or other.

      (2) Consult military or civilian weather forecasters for data on tracks of weather



           balloons or any unusual meteorological activity that may have a bearing on the stimulus for
           the UFO.

      (3) Consult navigators and astronomers in the area to determine if any astronomical body or
            phenomenon might account for the sighting.

      (4) Consult military and civilian tower operators, air operations units, and airlines to determine
            if the sighting could have been an aircraft.  Local units of the Federal Aviation Agency
            (FAA) can be of assistance in this regard.

      (5) Consult persons who may know of experimental aircraft of unusual configuration, rocket
            and guided missile firings, or aerial tests in the area.

      (6) Consult local and State police, county sheriffs, forest rangers, and other civil officials who
            may have been in the area at the time of the sighting or have knowledge of other

8. Transmittal of Reports:

   a. Timeliness.  report all information on UFO's promptly.  Electrical transmission with a
       "Priority" precedence is authorized.

   b. Submission of Reports.  Submit multiple-addressed electrical reports to:

      (1) ADC

      (2) Nearest Air Division (Defense)

      (3) FTD WPAFB.  (First line of Text: FOR TDETR.)

      (4) CSAF. (First line of Text: FOR AFRDC.)

      (5) OSAF. (First line of Text: FOR SAF-OI)

   c. Written Reports.  In the event that follow-up action requires a letter report, send it to FTD
       TDETR, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 45433.  FTD will send the reports to interested
       organizations in the US and to SAF-OI if required.

   d. Reports from Civilians.  Advise civilians to report UFOs to the nearest Air Force Base.

   e. Negative or Inapplicable Data.  If specific information is lacking, refrain from using the words
       "negative" or "unidentified" unless all logical leads to obtain the information outlined in
       paragraph 11 have been exhausted.  For example, the information on weather conditions in
       the area, as requested in paragraph 11g, is obtainable from the local military or civilian
       weather facility.  Use the phrase "not applicable (NA)" only when the question really does not
       apply  to the sighting under investigation.

10. Comments of Investigating Officer.  This officer will make an initial analysis and comment on the possible cause or identity of the stimulus in a supporting statement.  He will make every effort to obtain pertinent items of information and to test all possible leads, clues, and hypotheses.  The investigating officer who receives the initial report is in a better position  to conduct an on-the-spot- survey and follow-up than subsequent investigative personnel and analysts who may be far removed from the area and who may arrive too late to obtain vital data or information necessary for firm conclusions.  The investigating officer's comments and conclusions will be in the last paragraph of the report submitted through channels.  The reporting official will contact FTD (Area Code 513-257-0916 or 257-6678) for verbal authority to continue investigations.

11. Basic Reporting Data and Format.  Show the abbreviation "UFO" at the beginning of the text of all electrical reports and in the subject of any follow-up written reports.  Include required data in all electrical reports, in the order shown below:

   a. Description of the Objects(s):

      (1) Shape.

      (2) Size compared to a known object.

      (3) Color.

      (4) Number.

      (5) Formation, if more than one.

      (6) Any discernible features or details.

      (7) Tail, trail or exhaust, including its size.

      (8) Sound.

      (9) Other pertinent or unusual features.

   b. Description of Course of Object(s):

      (1) What first called the attention of observer(s) to the object(s).

      (2) Angle of elevation and azimuth of object(s) when first observed.  (Use theodolite or
           compass measurement if possible.)

      (3) Angle of elevation of object(s) upon disappearance.  (Use theodolite or compass
           measurement if possible.)

      (4) Description of flight path and maneuvers of object(s).  (Use elevations and azimuth, not

      (5) How did the object(s) disappear?  (Instantaneously to the North, for example.)

      (6) How long were the object(s) visible?  (Be specific - 5 minutes, 1 hour, etc.)

   c. Manner of Observation:

      (1) Use one or any combination of the following items: Ground-visual, air-visual,
           ground-electronic, air-electronic.  (If electronic, specify type of radar.)

      (2) Statement as to optical aids (tele-



           scopes, binoculars, etc.) used and description thereof.

      (3) If the sighting occurred while airborne, give type of aircraft, identification number, altitude,
           heading, speed, and home station.

   d. Time and Date of Sighting:

      (1) Greenwich date-time group of sighting and local time.

      (2) Light conditions (use one of the following terms: Night, day, dawn, dusk).

   e. Location of Observer(s).  Give exact latitude and longitude coordinates of each observer,
       and/or geographical position.  In electrical reports, give a position with reference to a known
       landmark in addition to the coordinates.  For example, use "2 mi N of Deeville"; "3 mi SW of
       Blue Lake," to preclude errors due to teletype garbling of figures.

   f. Identifying Information on Observer(s):

      (1) Civilian - Name, age, mailing address, occupation, education and estimate of reliability.

      (2) Military - Name, grade, organization, duty, and estimate of reliability.

   g. Weather and Winds-Aloft Conditions at Time and Place of Sighting:

      (1) Observer(s) account of weather conditions.

      (2) Report from nearest AWS or US Weather Bureau Office of wind direction and velocity in
           degrees and knots at surface, 6000', 10,000', 16,000', 20,000', 30,000', 50,000', and
           80,000', if available.

      (3) Ceiling.

      (4) Visibility.

      (5) Amount of cloud cover.

      (6) Thunderstorms in area and quadrant in which located.

      (7) vertical temperature gradient.

   h. Any other unusual activity or condition, meteorological, astronomical, or otherwise that might
       account for the sighting.

   i. Interception or identification action taken (such action is authorized whenever feasible and in
      compliance with existing air defense directives).

   j. Location, approximate altitude, and general direction of flight of any air traffic or balloon
      releases in the area that might account for the sighting.

   k. Position title and comments of the preparing officer, including his preliminary analysis of the
       possible cause of the sighting(s).  (See paragraph 10.)

12. Reporting Physical Evidence:

   a. Photographic:

      (1) Still Pictures:  Forward the original negative to FTD (TDETR), Wright-Patterson AFB,
           Ohio 45433, and indicate the place, time, and date the photograph was taken.

      (2) Motion Pictures.  Obtain the ORIGINAL film.  Examine the film strip for apparent cuts,
           alterations, obliterations, or defects.  In the report comment on any irregularities,
           particularly in films received from other than official sources.

      (3) Supplemental Photographic Information.  Negatives and prints often are insufficient to
           provide certain valid data or permit firm conclusions.  information that aids in plotting or in
           estimating distances, apparent size and nature of object, probable velocity, and movements

            (a) Type and make of camera.

            (b) Type, focal length, and make of lens.

            (c) Brand and type of film.

            (d) Shutter speed used.

            (e) Lens opening used; that is "f" stop.

            (f) Filters used.

            (g) Was tripod or solid stand used.

            (h) Was "panning" used.

            (i) Exact direction camera was pointing with relation to true North, and its angle with
                respect to the ground.

      (4) Other Camera Data.  If supplemental data is unobtainable, the minimum camera data
           required are the type of camera, and the smallest and largest "f" stop and shutter speed
           readings of the camera.

      (5) Radar.  Forward two copies of each still camera photographic prints per AFR 95-7. 
           Classify radarscope photographs per AFR 205-1.

   NOTE: If possible, develop film before forwarding.  Mark undeveloped film clearly to indicate this fact, to avoid destruction by exposure through mail channels to final addresses.

   b. Material.  Air Force echelons receiving suspected or actual UFO material will safeguard it to
       prevent any defacing or alterations which might reduce its value for intelligence examination
       and analysis.

   c. Photographs, Motion pictures, and Negatives Submitted by Individuals.  Individuals often
       submit photographic and motion picture material as part of their UFO reports.  All original
       material submitted will be returned to the individual after completion of necessary studies,
       analysis, and duplication by the Air Force.



AFR 80-17

By Order of the Secretary of the Air Force

Official                                                        J.P. McCONNELL
                                                                   General U.S. Air Force
                                                                   Chief of Staff

R.J. PUGH                                                 1 Attch.
Colonel, USAF                                           1. (Sec. C1)
Director of Administrative Services





Adamski, George. "Inside the Flying Saucers", New York: Paperback Library Inc., l967.

Aime', Michael. "Flying Saucers and the Straight Line Mystery". New York: Criterion Books, 1958.

________. "The Truth About Flying Saucers". New York: Criterion Books, 1956.

Cramp, Leonard G. "Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer". New York: British Book Center, 1955.

Davidson, Leon. "Flying Saucers: An Analysis of the Air Force Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14."  Ramsey, New Jersey:  Ramsey-Wallace, 1956.

Edwards, Frank. "Flying Saucers - Serious Business".  New York Bantam Books, Inc., 1966.

Fuller, John G. "Incident at Exeter".  New York:  Putnam, 1966.

________. "The Interrupted Journey".  New York:  Dial Press, 1966.

Gaddis, Vincent H. "Mysterious Fires and Lights".  New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1967.

Girvan, Waverly. "Flying Saucers and Common Sense".  New York: Citadel Press. 1956.

Hall, Richard, "The UFO Evidence". Washington, D.C.: NICAP, 1964.



Jessup, Morris K. "UFO and the Bible".  New York: Citadel Press, 1956.

________. "The Case for the UFO".  New York:  Citadel Press, 1955.

Jung, Carl Gustav. "Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky".  London: Routledge and Paul, 1959.

Keyhoe, Donald E. "Flying Saucers: Top Secret",  New York:  Putnam, 1960 ,

________. "Flying saucers from Outer Space".  New York: Holt , 1953.

________.  "The Flying Saucer Conspiracy", New York: Holt, 1955.

Leslie, Desmond, and George Adamski. "Flying Saucers Have Landed". New York: The British Book Centre, 1953.

Lorenzen, Coral. "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax", New York: William-Frederick Press, 1962.

Lorenzen, Coral, and Jim Lorenzen. "Flying Saucer Occupants" New York: The New American Library, 1967.

Menzel, Donald H. "Flying Saucers" Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953.

Menzel, Donald H., and Lyle G. Boyd. "The World of Flying Saucers; a Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age". Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1963.

Reeve, Bryant. "Flying Saucer Pilgrimage".  Amherst, Wisc.: Amherst Press, 1957.

Ruppelt, Edward J. "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects", Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1956.

Skully, Frank. "Behind the Flying Saucers". New York: Holt, 1950.

Steiger, Brad, and Joan Writenour. "Flying Saucers Are Hostile, New York: Universal Publishing and Dist. Corp., 1967.



Tacker, Lawrence J. "Flying Saucers and the USAF". Princeton, N. Y.: Van Nostrand, 1960.

Twitchell, Cleve. "The UFO Saga". Lakemont, Georgia: CSA Press, 1966.

Vallee, Jacques. "Anatomy of a Phenomenon".  Chicago, Illinois, Regnery, 1965.

________.  "Challenge to Science". Chicago, Illinois:  Regnery, 1965.

Young, Mort. "UFO Top Secret". New York: An Essandess Special Edition, 1967.

              Articles and Periodicals

Babcock, E. J., and T. G. Beckley. "UFO Plagues N. J. Reservoir", Fate, Vol. 19, No. 10, Issue 199 (Oct. 1966), 34.

Berliner, Don. "The UFO From the Designers Viewpoint", Air Progress, Vol. 21, No. 4 (October 1967), 36.

Berry, Graham. "Those Mysterious Signals from Outer Space," Los Angeles Times West Magazine. Jan. 8,     1967), 27.

"Expert Says UFO Pictures Authentic," Los Angeles Times (Jan. 17, 1967).

Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, (Mar.- April 1964).

Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 10, No. 6, (Nov. - Dec, 1964).

"Flying Saucers', Look, Special Edition (1967).

"A Fresh Look at Flying Saucers," Time, (Aug. 4, 1967).

Gallup, George, and John Davies. "Five Million Americans Have Seen Flying Saucers", Fate, Vol. 20, No. 10, Issue 211 (October 1967), 41.

Hynek, J. Allen, Letter to the Editors of Science, Fate, Vol. 20, No. 1, Issue 202, January 1967), 42.



________.  "The UFO Gap."  Playboy, Vol. 14, No. 12 (December 1967), 143.

Ogles, Major George W. "Air Force Takes the Stand: 'Just the Facts, Sir!"  The New Report on Flying Saucers, No. 2, A Fawcett Publication, (1967), 4.

________.  "What Does the Air Force Really Know About Flying Saucers?," The Airman (July, 1967), 4.

Sagan, Carl. "Unidentified Flying Objects," Copyright 1963 by the Encyclopedia Americana, Reprinted for private circulation.

"UFO Reports,"  Flying Saucers, No. 1 (1967).

"The World Needs an Enemy," Alabama Journal, (Sept. 8, 1967), 4.

World Roundup of UFO Sitings and Events, The Flying Saucer Review, (1958).

                  Official Documents

U. S. Congress, Committee on Armed Services, Hearing on Unidentified Flying Objects. #55, U. S. Printing Office, l966.

                     Other Sources

Project Blue Book, 1 March, 1967, brochure presented to Base UFO officers at a conference at the University of Colorado on 12 June 1967.




C  U  F  O  NSM
The Computer UFO Network

SYSOP - Jim Klotz
Webmaster - Chris Lambright
Information Director - Dale Goudie

UFO Reporting and Information Service
Director - Dale Goudie
Mail service currently unavailableVoice Line - unavailable


Back to Top of this Page To CUFON Main Page