1. OA TE . T\ME GROUP 2. LOCATION Shutesbur,y, ssac~usetts 4. NUMBER OF OBJECTS 5. LENGTH OF OIS!ItVATION 6. TYPE OF OBSIAVATION Ground-Visua 1 10. CONCLUSION 11. IItlE, SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Object moving from NE to NW. Bell ved to be several mile s aw Looked like a large harvest moon in s:i ze. Speed compared to that of a passanger plane. Position was just above horizon ir NH. Li.gbts not on in house. Object had glow ti'lat illuninat;;~ the area. Observation f!'Ol:l inside house through window. r~rormation submitted qy Raymond Fawler. ~Q?.I}I{ENTS: Hoon at 23. 25.18 at 1800 on 14 Feb. This place s the noon a t 1.40 deg azimuth J5 deg elevation at the tire of the o y.. sighting ruling out a refraction of the moon. T'.ne 1st mag star t-~X'.x....;.H.;.;;;._ ~Arcturus is on t ne horizcn at al:Dut. JOO deg azinruth. Object 9. PHYSICAL EVIDENCI reported moving from NE to NW. No data to indicate that the object oould NOT have been an Aircraft. '1a.ior Haston M. Jacks USAF PIO, Pentagon Hashington, D. C. Dear Ha.j or Jacks; Bloomfield, Connecticut Thank you very much for your letter, and enclosure, of 24 November 196h, in ans:.~er to !1'\Y UFO questions. I Wa.3 interested to see that the Air Force still carries the report from Socorro as unsolved, particularly since a recent letter from Or. Donald Menzel to me ca.tried a contra.zy opinion. Although he admits that he had not seen "any de- tailed information" about the Socorro report, he flatly came out that is "was prob- ably a hoax or a delusion." I sent him a copy of your fact sheet but as yet he hasn't c ommented on it. With respect to the "hoax .. conclusion on the Glassboro, N.J. sighting, I am now in possesion of a. NICAP report on that sighting. In it, they quote at some length o t~e experts who examined the leaves of trees in the area, as well as other vegata tion, and gav9 it as their opinion that the "singe" da."Tlage ii~.A done precluded a hoax by youngsters. 'fhey stated that leaves were recovered fro~ a 40-foot oak and that other da~age done to trees would have required the use of ma.chiner.y -one injury, they c;tated, \i'as not inflicted by any known type of tool." Hight I ask if you all have queried these men or looked into this aspect of the report at all? Or are you basing your "hoax" conclusions solely on the evidence of a. few footprints and bits of tin foil whi~h could well have been made (or dropped) by persons visiting the site before your people arrived? It is my undel"Standing that several days elapsed between the time of the initial report and the ~risit by an Air Force investigator. ni th respect to your s tatemen f'. that the Air Force "still tnaintains the responsiblity for investigati ng UFOs", might I enquire as to why \>Jestover AE'B, in the case of the Shutesbury, :1ass. sighting covered in 1'1\Y 14 Nov 196h letter, stated that they were referring the informatio n to the F~ for f urther investigation? Seems strange to me. And might I 3l~o ask if your office has received and evaluated TrtE UFO EviD~NCE, a re- port published last su."''Uller by N:CAP? I under5tand that it is heavily documented and rela. tes a number of s::gh ~ings made by pilots, a.s t r-Jnomers, missile engineers and many other repu~able, technically trained personnel. It would seem from the data presented the~ t~a.t a 3ubstantial case has been made 1r a more scientific and open investigation of ~Cs than has been made in the nast. I shall be interested in your coilt'lents. Infon1ati6n' Only Source: A P R 0 Bulletin J~uary 1965 Orange Disc in Massachusetts Mrs. Harriet E . Smith o( Shutesbury, reported seeing an orange disc shaped object which lit up her home as it traveled from northeast to northwest at 6 p. m. on November 13, 1964. The duration of the s ighting was about 60 spokesman at Westover AFB said he r eceived an inquiry about a UFO sighting from a Shutesbury woman early that morning. He called Flight Operations but that section re ported it had no informa t ion and so he turned the details over to the FAA for further investigation. The foregoing sighting was detailed in the November 14th Springfield Daily and s ubsequently a Reverend Ray Hass o f West Suffield, Conn. reported 1 his sighting which took place at the same Reverend Hass was looking west from his horne when he saw a bright orange object in the sky. He said he could not get a full view because he had to look through tree branches. He obs~rved it Cor a minute but did not see it move. On Friday Reverend Haas told other residents about the object and one of Forest Spear, said he saw the same thing. West Suffield, Conn. is from 35- 40 miles south by southwest of Shutebury, Mass. It is poss1ble that the object seen by Mrs. Smith wa; the same as that seen by Reverend Haas and Mr. Spear. There could have been a time di({erence of a minute o r two durin~ which one viewed it at a standstill a nd the other during its OigbL Shutesbury, ~.c--.iini !" s~.O \'P CJ'Ifi 1-....i-a-1; ct l.l'"l tiiM ?/L-4tJ c P ~rit;~rr.nu? M ~ ftf\ .: b rtQII' I !'-U. !)r~ri' ~utlir,.,ld. fjLIJfl8oofr t :~ :e M.,. SPRINGFIE~D, MASS., SATUHDAY EVENe~G, NOVEMBER 14, 196-t riOVERii~GAT Si-1UT~S3URY . . Brilliant Oranae Disc Re- I ported; Glow Lights Up I , Inside of House I A)ti(ERS'l' -A resident of\ Shule~hul'y or the p~!lt H years rl'pol'll'd this m ormn:: that n t 6 la'lt n i:;ht !'lhe obsl'rv"<i on u n cocuully brilliant" obJ.ect Jn the !'lky movi n'l from tn~ northca:n I to th,. northwest. l t wa1 Vl$ible for nnout a minuu~. :-.trs. Harriet E. Sm1m o! WP~jt Pelham Rrl. dl'scr1~l the object\ l'l; L1111iant ornn.:l! _m colo~ t~nd pcart'd u a f'JII moon, and seen a "Oyll\,; saucer" she be- lieved that was what the ooject Mr.~. Smith ~id that at the\ lime of the sightm; liJ;hts were not o n in her home but that the house .vas corrnlet,.ly illuml- na:rd ny ;hP ";:!ow" t.'1m1n~ m the obJPct. She .,;aid cnat (Conllnu,.d o n l'astl'l 3) ,.. ! (Continuzd From 'Pa::c 1) ..... the incid~nt la.,tcd (o:-a;'l:>ro>-i malcly 60 ~cconds. . ~ ~ , Amh"r no11.::c sa1d lh" .. cy ,ave not received anY, _re1 '' ot unidcnti!icd flying ooJeets in 'the a rNL t the \\' est.WI"t Ai.r Force Ba:;e Info~ancn . / nee said thM he ra.ec:ved an In , lquit'y ;lbo\ll ~he umc!':nl.!l~ rly ' l)bjcct ;his morn'"-:; i . o m a , ... oman in the s;,ute:>hUI'Y area ',oo calll.-d F:i~ht o~ra nons on :;he base. Thi.; s or.. re;l0t1ed ltha.t lt had no .r.!orm<~:~ondof ~e . :~d t\! -ned :he c ta li.S mvestl~t~uon. , ' On Oct. 2!) ~ report. was Te- \.tei_:!ed f a UTI> at Bnmuctd._ -. - COHTBBTS ' HICAP lllaaeaehusatta Subcc1nittee : 13 Friend Court, \'Ienlla:a, lliaasachusetts s~ 19'lt or 1959 UPO ~ighting, Turnc Aa:.aine Octob.-1,-1960 UFO S1g)at1ng, VJest:rori, aaclrws.tta ~--- Honcbe:' l!, 1964. D70 Sighting. SlnruaBbury,. jlaseachuanta 11wc11p on UJ'O SigbtiDgs . . Ra)n:r:d B. Fowler . : ~IC.AY !d.&saachusett:s llr~estiga"t;ing Subco-ni ~tee M.atiOia"l Iaatestiptiona Com:nittee on aori.al Phe:nGmra ~a:shillstcm D.c. alter llebb L'FO Dak ia submitted for NICAP s .files. 29 December 1964 Thia ia 1n reply to your letter or December 9. The Air Porce conducts a scientific investigation ot ""OJ.,... 0 a1gbt1nga. In t1tteen years ot reaearcb, no evidence has been tound to support the contention that UFOa are extraterrestrial objects under intelligent control. Thousands or UPO observations have been determ1ned to be a misinterpretation or conventional or natural objects. The Socorro, New Mexico, sighting is still unsolved. However, no ev~dence waa found which indicated that the vehicle was f"I"'m outer space. Since we cannot find the pllotswh~were flying the vehicle, the case will remain unsolved. 'fhe lack of radiation and the speed or the veh1c! 1ndtcate that the craft bad not experienced any space rea1denc,.. The Ol.Jlasboro, New Jersey, report is det1nitely a hoax. 'l'he investigation was conducted by several officers - from McOUire A.PB. A.t'ter the investigation, the. ott1cera determined that the reported sighting waa a hoax and that no additional investigation was necessary. Photographs or the area revealed that only one buah waa broken. This could euil7 have been done by applying weight or any other objeot to tbe top or the tree. newapaper 7ou forwarded on the Shutesbury, Maaaachuaatta, atght1ng or 14 November 1964 indicates that the objeot observed waa an aircraft. The spokesman rrom Weatove~AJB tion Ott1ce probably had FAA cheek for aircra.tt under their operational control. since all civ111~n tlighta are under their jur1adict1on. 'lb1a officer had checkecl ~or mU1tary aircraft and detexm1ned that none were . 941rational 1n the area. H1a cheek with FAA "lltas a routine procedure for evaluating sighting~ attribu~ed t o 3ircratt observation. Since this report wa s not forwarded to Wright- Patterson from Westover we oa n assume that t he aircraft ~<~3.s identified by FAA; therefore no OFO ~port was s ubmitted . object was not an unidenti.fled flying object but an o.1rera.f't. The HICAP publication, =The U:PO Evidence" , has been reviewed by the Air Porce. The publication 13 a voluminous collection or reports, racts, opinions, excerpts or investi- gative reports. and coriespondance all designed to support the oontent1on ot' NICAP that Ol'Os are a problem of nation&l importance. In it, the Air Force 1s charged with handling the UIO program 1n a secretive manner. This secrecy is refuted b.J the publication itaelt since the Air Force case rtlea are a pri=e aource or the data presented. The document doe a contain JDaJ17 reports or reputable and technical peraonne 1. J1an7 o~ tbeae au. report a are in Air J'orce file a w1 th t irm evaluations o~ known conventional or natural objects. NICAP s continued attack on the Ail-Porce 010 program has no basis kl Connecticut Sincerel;r, MA3mll M. JAI"SS Major, USAP Chief, Pictorial Branch Publication Int'oxwation D1e1on Oftioe ot Information