Ob~R...vt~ Foho ln1ts Foho lnts Referred to Date Referred to Dete Referred to Dete REGISTRY FILE CONTROL Transactoon Year Locatoon Date base updated ARCH!VAL ACTION 0 De~tro~ COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION INSTRUCTIONS 1. FOLIO NUMBERING OF DOCUMENTS Each document attached to a file s to be f1led in date order and gven a consecutive folio number by the attach.ng offcer. Documents must not be removed from a f ile without the concurrence of the Registry. 2. MARKINGS (a) The document on whch act1on s required will be .ndcated by entenng the appropnate fol10 number 1n column ( 1) 0:1 the fila cover. The ac!lc,., r offcer's name w ill be Inserted 1n column (2). (b) When action on the folio s completed. the action officer will initial the date column (3). (c) Before the file leaves a particular group or secton. the file should be checked to ensure that all act1on required w1th1n the got ' ,s t-een completed. The checkng officer w1ll in1t1al and date column (4) (d) Act1on off1cers who w1sh to rafer th1s f1le to other off1cers for act1on or 1nformat10n should .ndcate name of action of!cer c n f1I<J cover and net on the correspondence. 3 . RESUBMITTING A FilE To resubmit a file for a later date. write the relevant folio number and the instr:.~cton R/S in column (1 ). followed by the oflcer's name and date 1n column (2). The acton offcer w1ll complete column (3) when the acton s f.nahzed 4. USE OF FilE TRANSFER ADVICES The ob)ectve of file transfer adv1ces (Form CS/G4 4/1) IS to enable the headquarters regstry to be notfed of the transfer of files from branch to branch or secton to sect1on wh1ch have been made d1rect. i.e. Without the file pass.ng through the Regstry In the:.e cases a transfer advce must be completed and forwarded to the Regstry. '" add1t1on to folio mark1ngs (2). 5. DESCRIPTORS A c ton offcers who refer to th1s file under name(s) other than the t1tle as shown on the front cover are mv1ted to list hereunder. SUitable add1t1onal descnptors. Regstry Use Regstry Use Regstry Use Keyword Descnptor Only Keyword Descriptor Only Keyword Descnptor DB Update DB Update DB Update UFO Uniaentifiea Flying Objects Miscellaneous Enquiries DECEMBER 1978 UFO reports should be forwarded to: Block E-4-27 Russell Offices nt of Air Force Intelligence fAl NATIONAL Australian Government DO NOT OPEN This acid free mask contains ........ ~ ........... folios with the date range The contents of the mask are: D Exempt from public access under paragraph(s) You have a statutory right to seek a review of the exemption. ~Not in the open period as defined by the Archives Act 1983. D Withheld pending agency advice Date mask applied ... ~LEASE PASS ON BY HAND AT EVERY STAGE MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE Unidentified Submerged and/or Flying Objects RECEIVED: 9.4.81 CORRESPONDENCE FROM: the Minister for Administrative REPLY REQUIRED BY: Services for Mr B Wright ACTION OFFICERS INIT ./DATE ACTION Ministerial liaison Office Mr Lat more For - Action -InformaUon Interim Reply by: To clear reply Ministerial liaison Office To check papers Ministerial Date sent: 2 7 APR 198\ MA ii~gned: Letter signed:!29 APR 198f ON RETURN OF PAPERS FROM MINISTER MrW1lson ~c Mr Latti e r, ~A Mr Cr er ~ i/ To prepare further advice To register MINISTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY I"ARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBEftRA A.C. T . 2600 Your 1 letter of 4 March 1981 addressed to my colleague, the Hon ~ D J Killen, MP, has been referred to me for comment on your question re; f a photograph taken by Mr Norman Benstead of Albury. 0, ZP !1.-vt..t'!u lflff he Me 1 bourne era 1 d and TV Channe 1 7 each a story oR 2Q Nevembe1 ~ concerning a photograph of an alleged unidentified flying object (UFO) taken by Benstead at Lake Hume in October 1972. It wasLreported t at CSIRO had pronounced the photograph to be a double and that he negative should be destroyed. j/d..,ly~ CSIRO does no resea ch on UFOs, ~the matter was investigated and c~v~ '""I'M while it is tPI:.le tha~ a C~O scientist did examine the negativeJ 'i-t \Jash~ k in a private capacitj and not on behalf of the Organization. / During t~e co~:.~Pse of xamination it was found that if~ after several ~ ~a film cassete was removed from an Instamatic-type camera the film rewound itself to the extent of one frame. wit~ the ~Ylt tflU., n-oone un er blac out condltlons, wAefl.. the cassette wa eplacedr-.t, J,~'!hm/t' ~the last frame o e fil to be expose was pos1 1oned to rece1ve a second image. "L '~!. /t ~eJ..f,1T rW~ttm.ul The scieAtist ceAcerRedf fol owea this procedure,andiwas able to produce a picture similar to Mr Bens ead's. He forwarded this manufactured picture to the Unidentified lying Objects Investigation Centre (UFOIC) Sydney -which had approached him in the first place - together with his on the original photog ph. He no longer has a copy of his report and)H!'does not recall dvising the destruction of a negative;btik n ~ believes that if he had givens ch advice, it would have related to tAehJ~ photograph, It is of interest that the RAAF h s checked }t records of UFO reports in September, October and November 1 2, in the Albury area, and has ~ th>at no reports were =~ If P"'( ?1/;t "'""') rtl, l'rfa/. Mr Bruce Wright 81 Cowper Street GLEBE NSW 2037 Yours sincerely, MINISTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Dear Nr Wright, MINISTER ASSISTING THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE Parli-at Bouae, Culaerra. ~ 2600. I re~er to your furtber letter of 4 Narc:b 1981 in relatioD to t1Didmltifie4 Sut.e:rged UIIJ/or rlyiDg wa.. ..,UDt of iDfomatioD you aeek will involve a leD;thy period of reMarc:h. Ac:cordiDgly a reply -Y take acae t~. I ha aakecl the MiAiater for Trauport to reply to queatiou 8, 9b, 9e, 9f, lg aDd th (iii), aD4 the MiDiater for Sciuoe aDd TechDology to reapoad to queatiOD 5. Mr Wright, 81 Cowper Str .. t, GLIIB. BSW 2037. Youra aiDcerely, KEVIN NE'!/lv\AN Private Secretary to the Minister for Science and Technology Referred by direction for your Minister's consideration and reply direct please. A copy of your Minister's reply would be appreciated. RECEIVED FROM Mr D.J. Killen, Minister for Defence, Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Mr Killen, 81 Cowper Street, GLEBE NSW 2037 4th March 1981 hank you for your letter of 24th June 19~0; 1 . Concerning Unidentified Sutmerged Objects and your advice that 'all reports' are investigated and none have been proved as unidentifiable. Can you please assure me they were therefore identified as conventional submarines or ships of Australian or other recognised earth bound countries. Why was Professor James McDonald sent to Australia byJthe United States Navy in 1966 to invest i gate unidentified subme rgeci objects. Are the results of his investigations readily availab~E: to the public, or are the} classified documents. If classified, why? In April 1970 at Rabaraba , Cheura and off Cape Vogel, Papua New Guinea (not yet independent) an unidentified submerged. object was reported by Mr Albert Robins; also in 1968 l\1r Otto Alder , then aide-de-camp, reported an unidentified submerged object of= Rabarada, PNG. What were these sight~ngs determined to be, egarding the Queensland University investigation of 1968 of a crashed Unidentified Flying Object; retired Queensland University Professor Brixius, conducted tests in 1975 of the material salvaged by Mrs Fraser, overseer of a property in McTaggart Road, Greenbank (own ed by Tas Co Pssociate d Fo rTest Holdings). fragments of material (metal) found late during 196$ although the cra.sh allegedly occurred inNovember 1966. Officers from the A.mberley Air Force Be.se investigated, took samples for test (also maintain a file) and sent samples t o Melbourne for transit to the Pentagon for further tests. i. Please arrange release of Amberley and Defence Headquarters files on the tests. ii. Why were the fragments sent t o the United States? 3. Why are Unidentified Flying Objects/Unidentified Submerged Object reports sent to the United States. 4. Are you able to investigate whether there are files on a lleged U. F . O. crashes, explosio~s at No1:rra 1976, Indooroopilly Dec and Churc* Point Sydney 26. 4 . 1969. In October 1972 Norman Benstead, Albury, took photo of U.F.O. over Lake Hume Dam (published in national newspapers). The CSIRO examined the photos (sent by v:illiam r-1oser of UFOIC Sydney) and made a two page report. The CSIRO reportedly sug~ested to Benstead that he d estroy the negatives. If the RA.4F is in c:narGe of J.tt'O H~'\ -.:t:::.g?.~lons rhy '\vould the CSIRO not for'.,rard photos onto s u.ch body. dill you seek Government Policy to ensure all ager.cies are requested to redirect u70 reports, photos, etc, to the RAAF. Can you advise details of t~e CSIRO r eport in this case. Will you please advise details of the RAAF report, and the one the RAAF received from the United States Airforce, after the examination of a 16mm colour film by a Civil Aviation official in P . N. G.(Port Moresby) of August 1953. The then Minister for Air, W. McMahon, admitted that the RAAF sent the film to the United States Airforce for evaluation. Was the film returned from the United States, if not, '"hY not. Regarding the 1.JFO landing of 6. 4 . 1 966 near Westall High School, Clayton, Victoria: Why did the RAAF burn the grass in the area to destroy the 'landing nest'. Regarding the airplane with nine passengers aboard that vanished on 22. 10. 78 (12 hours after Velentich) over the Solomon Islands. An intensive search by the RAAF allegedly failed to find trace of the place or bodies. Can you advise relevant details of the investigations. Re Valentich Case: a . Referring to item 8 of my letter of 20. 3 .80;as you are aware, the photos I refer to were taken by Roy Manifold at approx 6 .45pm at Cape Otway, shortly before Valentich was 'abducted'. Computer enhancement in USA revealed a solid object rising from beneath the sur.''ace of the water (U.S. O. ) and ,.,hen airborne it was surrounded by a cloud-like vapour exhaust residue. \'/hy did officers from Laverton base examine the photos and not the negatives, and determine then as 'decaying cumulus cloud'. Will you advise details of their report on this matter. b . Is it not true that Control contacted Valentich first to look for the U. F .O. c. Is it not true that the RAAF Orion was searching Saturday night for Valentich and not from Sunday morning as reported. Was Orion actually already on standby in South Australia to search for Valentich at the time of his ~isappearance. e. Why was the sophisticated Orion (equipped with airborne radar, L0\'1 LEVEL RADAR) used vThen Fokker Friendships and F28' s which have been regarded as adequate in the past for searches; readily available at Moorabbin at the'time. f . The released transcript supposedly starts at 7.06 pm and has Valentich orbiting at 7.09pm, three ffiinutes later, wouldn' t it have taken him two minutes to do a 360 degree turn. Surely. he was therefore talking about the UFO for a longer period t hen. microphone b~tton on the particular Cessna had to be pressed manually to operate meaning Valentich would have been pressing button to stay in contact with flight service unit all the time right through the metallic sound and until he 'hit the "'ater' . However, isn't it true that aircraft equipped ivi th VHF radio cannot communicate below certain altitudes, ie, King Island, minimum communication height would be 900m. Therefore, surely the end of the communication ie. metallic sound was not at zero metres (hitting water) at all. \'/hat therefore is the reason for presuming he hit the I s it true that classified U. F . O. material is at the Sale RAAF Base. ii. Is it true Valentich had seen the classified material at the Sale Base. iii. Who sent Valentich on the particular flight, and what was the reason for the flight. 10. What is Australia's involvement in Project Magnet and Operation Noah's Ark. 11. Re Pihe Gap: a . What was the function defined by the U.S.A. in seeking to establish the base. Was it a joint Australian-U. S . A. Defence space research facility. b . If a space research facility only, why is it so top secret that access to Australian parliamentarians is denied. Is there an underground city at Pine Gap. UFO/USO experiments (antigravity-electrogravitic propulsion) cor.ducted t tere o~ from there, and is Australia actively involved in such experiments. On or about 7-8 July 1947, did the A~stralian Government request news media in Australia to ~uppress informetion regarding an alleged capture/crash of a UFO at Roswell, or elsewhere, in the United States. Did the Australian Government issue a D notice at the time. 13. Tivo USO sight~ngs irere 'explained' by the RAAF as tornado-like meteorological manifestations, i.e., February 1963 near Moe -Victoria; and July 1965 on a beach near Vaucluse, NSW, (traces that an object had landed there). Were these new 'unique' tornado manifestations referred to the meteorological scientists for research as Slrrely they d8cerve world-wide attention arid. investigation. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to hearing from you again on these matters. Yours faithfully, Signed Bruce Wright. Dear Hr Wright Your letter of 4 March 1981 addressed to -colleague. the Mtntster for Defence. has been referred to for co.ent on your question regarding photograph taken by Mr Not"'lln Benstead of Albury. On 20 November 1978. the Melbourne Herald and TV Channel 7 each presented story concerning a photograph of an alleged unfdenttfted flying object (UFO) taken by Mr Benstead at Lake H11111 tn October 1972. It was then reported that CSIRO had pronounced the photograph to bt a double exposure and that the negative should bt destroyed. Although CSIRO does no research on UFOs. I have had tht matter investigated and can confirm that a CSIRO sctenttst dtd txafnt tht negative; however. ht did thts tn a private capacity and not on behalf of tht Organtzatton. thfs tXIIIfnatton ft was found that ff a f1l11 cassette was rt110Ved fro an InstaMtic-type CUitra after several exposures. the ff1111 rewound itself to tht extent of one fra ... If the cassette was then replaced blackout condftfons. thts had the result that the last fr .. of the f11 to be expostcl was posftfontd to receive a second fge. Foll~ng this procedure, the scientist concerned was ablt to produce a picture sftlar to Hr Bensttad's. He forwrded this 1111nufactured picture to the Untdenttfttd Flying Objects Investigation Centre (UFOIC) Sydney wtttch had approachtcl hf fn the ftrst place -together with hfs report on tht original photograph. Ht no longer has a copy of hfs report and does not recall advtstng the destruction of a negative' however, ht believes that if he had given such advice, it would have related to his own photograph. It 1s of interest that the RAAF has checked fts own records of UFO reports fn Septt~Mr, October and Nov-.r 1972, fn the Albury area, and has no reports of I"Y sightings during this period. Hr Bruce Wright 81 Cowper Strttt GLEBE NSW 2037 Yours sincerely, Sgd. David Thomson a,lh'fST~Rs Dear Mr Wr1pt Your letter of 4 Mlrdl 1181 addressed to-collugue, the Mtntster for Defence, has been referred to for caant on your question reprdfnt a pltoto91"1plt tit. It)' Mr lloiWift lenstead of Albury. On 20 Novtlllber 1978, the Milbourne Herald and TV Channel 7 each presented a story concerning a pbotoveph of u alleged untclentffted flying object (UFO) uU. by Mr Beutead at Late H.-tn October 1972. It w.s then reported that CSJRO had pronowtcecl the photograph to be a double exposut"e that the neptfve should be destroyed. Althougft CSIRO does no research on UFOs, I have had the tter tnvesttgatecl and can COftffnt that a CSIRO scfent1st did u.fne the neoattve' ...... r. he dfd this tn a private capactt,y and not on betaalf of the Orpntution. Durfnt this ex.fnatiOft ft ws fOUftd that ff a ftl cassette was r.oved fi"'OI an lnstlllatfc-type a.ra after Hera1 exposures, the ftl rewowtd ttaelf to the extent of o trae. If the cassette was then replaced uftder blackout condfttons. thfs had the result that the last fn. of the ftl to a.. uposecl was posttfOMd to reatve a IICOftCI tge. 'o11owtng thts procedure, the scientist concerned was able to produce a ptcwre st.tlar to Mr leftstud's. He forwrdld thts nufactured picture to tM Unfcleltfftecl Flying Objects lnvesttgatfOft Clfttre (UFOIC) S)'dney - wt.fda had approacMcl ht tn the ffnt place -together with hfs report on tM or1gtna1 pe.otograph. He no lOfttlf' has a copy of hfs report and does ROt recall advtstftl the .. mactfon of a negattve; however, he belitftl tMt tf he had lfftft such adv1ce, tt _,ld have related to hfs ... photograph. It 11 of tnterest tltat the RMf has checkH ttl c.n records of UFO reports tn Sep~r. October Hd NovMtar lt7l, tn the Albury aNa, and hU no reports of "1 stghttnp durtne thts period. Mr Bruce Wright 81 eowpw Street Youn sincerely, Davtd n.c.on Dear Mr Wright MINISTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY I"ARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA A .C . T . 2600 Your letter of 4 March 1981 addressed to my colleague, the -lion B 3 Killen, F -- ~has been referred to me for comment on your question regarding a photograph taken by Mr Norman Benstead of Albury. On 20 November 1978, the Melbourne Herald and TV Channel 7 each presented a story concerning a photograph of an alleged unidentified flying object (UFO) taken by Mr Benstead at Lake Hume in October 1972. It was then reported that CSIRO had pronounced the photograph to be a double exposure that the negative should be destroyed. Although CSIRO does no research