DIV SION <AF C) W IGH"f.PATTERSON AIR FO CE BA E , OHIO 45433 TDPI' ( UFO) . National Electronics Conference Panel on D70s Dr J Allen Hynek l. I have just read the Electronic News" article of September 30, 1968, with regards to the National Electronics Conference panel on UFOs . The article states that you ann three other gentlemen will appraise the current status of UFOs a nd review the latest findings, including those of the Condon connnittee. I lish to inform you th t under no circumstances \>rill you review the fir:dings of the Condon Committee as an official Air Force Consultant. The review of tne findings of the Condon committee will be ndertaken by the Nation :. Academy of Sciences, therefore, the Air Force is not going to involve itself with Dr Condon's report until the National Academy releases tile document to the Secretary of the Air Force and the general public. 2. As your project monitor, I would appreciate it if you would refrai:: from identifying yourself as an Air Force consultant when particip tin3 in pseudo-scientific panels of this type C::.iili.:;ro~QUIN'I:Ji.NILU.~/Jr~ Lt Colonel, USAF Chief, Aerial Phenomena Branch Aerospace Tecrmologies Division ~roduction Directorate NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 60201 DEPARTMENT OF ASTRONOMY FTD (TDETR) Research and Aerial Phenomenon Division \fright-Patterson Air Force Base Attn: Major H. Quintanilla, Jr. Dear Major Quintanilla: LINDHEIMER ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH CENTER 20 November 1967 Re: Report on '(JFO sighting of 19 April 1967, Burney, Calif. I recorrunend that The evaluation be changed from ionized plasma to unidentified since there is nothing in the data to support "a charged ice particle plasma". I n the first place, the term "ice particle plasma" is meaningless to a physicist. I, at least, do not know of any ice particle plasma that is glowing white, travels slmrly and is visible for approximately 10 minutes. This appears t o be a purel y ad hoc evaluation and is open to the severest criticsm. Since this case has also been submitted to the University of Colorado, I suggest that we request an evaluation from them. Sincerely yours, FTD (TDETR) Research and Aerial. Phenomenon Division \-Jright-Patterson Air Force Base Attn: Najor H. Quintanilla, Jr. Dear Major Quintanilla: 20 November 1967 Re: Sighting of 17 April 1967 from Saigon As reported, this case is completely unidentified and much additional in.:for::ation is called for. It is inconceivable that military intelligence \-Iould not have looked further into this case and, therefore, I should like to request that any further info!11'...ation garnered in this case be fo~;a:rded to Project Blue Book. Saigon must certainly have 24 hour radar coverage: were these objects picked up by radar? Witness indicates that jet interception may have been involved, although objects were traveling "at least five times raster than any jet-pm.;rered aircraft I have ever sean". The objects 'rere oval in shape and were traveling in a. vertical aspect. In vie1r of the fact that the witness "was k.novm as a stable, mature member of the 52~-th Y..ilitary Intelligence Attacblr,ent," it appears that aJ.l persons concerned in this sight.ing should be further interrogated. I further sugcest that a copy of this si~hting be transmitted to the University of Colorado group. Since the source of this itlfol"llS.tion -was himself a member o-r a military intelligence detachment, H . appears all the more incomprehensible that this incident was not follmred up in considerable detail. Sincerely yours, J. Allen Hynek NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY EVANSTO N, n.LINO IS 60'201 D EPARTMENT OF ASTRON OMY FTD (TDETR) Research and Aerial Phenomenon Division Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Attn: Major H. Quintanilla, Jr . Dear Major Quintanilla: UNDHEIMER ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH CENTI!R 17 November 1967 Re: UFO of 18 December 1966, Bear Mt. State Park, New York. Evaluated originally as hoax. On re-examination, I find no substantiation for the evaluation of hoax, particularly in v iew of the photo-analysis report, No. 67-10, dated 20 Feb- ruary 1967, which contains no informati on upon vhich a hoax can be based. To the contrary, the report states that close exaJnination of the negative has negated double exposure and/or retouching. The photographs appear genuine insofar as content is concerned, ho-vrever, no satisfactory explanation of the unidentified object could be made. The lack of a satisfactory ex- planation of the unidentified object does not constitute sufficient reason to declare it a hoax. Further, the intervie1-rer considered the vritness to be a "reliable source. " After examination of the print by myself and by Mr. Fred Beckman of the University of Chicago, we feel that the original negative should be requested for further examination. Mr. Beckman, a qualified photo-analyst, disagrees vrith the photo analysis presented in the report as to the distance of the object. He points out that the depth of field extends much farther than in- dicated in the report. It vill be noted, from the print, that the focus i s poor in the entire periphery of the picture regardless of the distance; only in the center of the picture is the focus good, and this good focus extends essentially t o infinity. Consequently no judgment can be made as to the real size of the object, if this judgment is base~ solely on the quality of focus. My r ecorrunendation is, therefore, that the evaluation by changed from hoax to unidentified. ~. Allen Hynek CORRALITOS OBSERVATORY ASTRONOMY DEPARTMENT NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY P.O. DRAWER ll:lO ; ACSOS 5:l4-84l1 LAS CRUCES; NEW MEXICO 88001 Dear Hector: I I am out here for about two l'!Teeks, working on our supernova program I and a number of other things. The BBC came out here to film a bit of me for their s. I will see them again in London in Harch. I am making a trip--at my own expense--to Prague, Paris (to see Jacques), ann to London to see some UFO people there. I will be gone two weeks, from Mar. 12 to }1ar. 26. The Doubleday people have finally persuaded n1o to do a book, to be called "Varieties of UFO Experience --an obvious take-off on Hilliam James famous book, Varieties of Religious Experience --he was the Harvard psychologist, as you The book commits me to no theories or interpretations---simply "the facts, m' amrr. I will point out that in astronomy there were fine observations of planetary motions (but for centuries the wrong theo~ and interpretation)--for years there Here the facts about meteorites (but the l'll'rong theory)--and in physics there Here observations on the aurorae (but the w.cong theary)--so what comes first are the observations--let theories wait. Certainly I won't get myself in a trap on ETI or plasma or anything el$e, as far as that goes. I have also bought ( at rolf own expense) a fine transcription tape recorder, which not only allows me to tape phone conversations easily-~but to have a secretary take them off easily--it has a back spacer, so it's just 1ike a dictaphone. So novr I will be able to furnish you with the transcripts of the various ( and interesting) phone interviews I have been having .all around the country. Now to get to the thin~s you want. The delay in reporting on many of the cases you have askerl. me ro out is oue simply to the fact that I needed more facts, and I have r.>een calling people up, and until now there was no lvay to transcribe them from the tape. CASE: 5 Nov. 1967 Farmersville, Ohio Roger McDowell. corrections Clearly a case of the moon. vlhen one makes x~s for the longitude of Farmersville "r~st of the 75 th meridian, and corrects for the difference frorn the meridian of Greenwich, one comes out to moonset for Farmersville at 20:21 EST. Since the sighting ti .e is given as 20:00, duration S nun., and the moon had a southern declination,--and the fact that he didn mention the moon when the nearly quarter moon Has plainly the-re,-make s it very likely that the moon was the culprit. The rr.oon, of course, lJaS nojz; 20 degrees in elevation---more like 4-8 clegs, but that is normal exaggeration. The ~ also ~mm somewhat farther south than observer idicated his J . jectwaas, but I do not think this K&X is serious. Also, he said he thought ~ might be the moon,but the moon wouldn't be visible Well, it was. -'rhank you for sending the resume of case listings for which I am to send you written comments. I was not aware you wanted conh .ents on the 1952 cases--those which Mr. Sw~eney so kindly ha.d duplica.teo tor me, J wanted those just to complete ;ny cwn iilt;fJ, But it you want oomments you slulll oel'tainlV havo thtJm, If there is any question about the appropriatuneaa o my using.the Xerox machine while I am visiting you, would ~ bringing my 01~ Xerox paper with me ease the situation. I can easily bring a box of ,it with me, since we also use it at the observatory. No c riticism could then be made that I am using up FTD supplies. It is clearly most inefficient for me to have to dictate material into a dictaphone and then have my secretary spend hours transcribing it. I wouldn't I think of >-tasting rrry time like that bA.ck at t h e university---q\rite unthinkable j for a department chairman to spend his time doing hack -vrork. Yet, ~ contract reads tha~ I am to fino. out whether there is anything of scientific value in UFO reports. Clearly then I must have free access to such reports as I deem be of value, and copies of .. matever unclassified material I feel it is important for me to have. Otherwise there is no point to having me as a consultant. Perhaps you, Mr. Sweeney and I can talk this.out the next time I visit---which is now scheduled for Feb. 15 and 16. A reporter frow !iF.tarillo called me yesterday to brief me on the flap they have been having in Hellington, Texas---many independent witnesses--E:xtter type ,. cases--animals disturbed, etc.--but t hey have not reported to the Air Force. None of them 1-tant publicity or ridicule. I will follow sornei of this by phone, . as anindividual,--but even '!ihe Condon Comrn. doesn't have this report. Well, enough !or now.. ' : Sincerely yours , .-Allen P.S. The manuscript of the book is not due to be delivered for two years--so much can happen bet~oreen now arrl then. On rrry way home from here, I have been asked to stop b~ Houston and regale the astronauts about UFOs. Well, wellll vfuen I asked the BBC people if they were going to film Menzel, they Major Hector Quintanilla, Jr. 30 November 1967 But be that all as it may, this does not concern me directly. My job as called for in the contract is to continue to see whether I can find anything of scientific value i n UFO reports. Th i s task I am pursuing. I try diligently to avoid "looking under the bed" techniques. I will leave such matter s to people trained to do such things and try to concentrate solely on the scientific aspects of the work, whatever those may be. cc: Dr. Cassiopo Mr. J. Svreeney Sincerely yours, J. Allen Hynek NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY EVANSTON, IWNOIS 60201 DEPARTMENT OF ASTRONOMY LINDHEIMER ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH CENTBR 30 November 1967 Major Hector Quintanilla, Jr. FTD (TDETR) Research and Aerial Phenomenon Division Hright Patterson Air Force Base Dear Major: herewith return the Burney, California case. I was not aware that this was the original copy, but nov1 upon examination I see that it apparently is. Had realized this before I would have made a xerox of it before bringing it with me from Dayton. At any rate, I wrote to Mr. Forrester, Shasta City Deputy Sheriff, to tell him that on Sunday, November 26 at 7:00P.M., I vrould call him for further i n- formation. (This is part of my regular plan now; I write in advance to '1-Titnesses I 1rish to interrogate, telling them that I will place a pnone call to t hem at a given time and asking them to be in readiness.) I found that Mr. Forrester had been killed i n an auto accident just three weeks ago. Very ironically, he had quit his sheriff' s job in Burney, California, "because he vranted to get avray from its hazards" and accepted a job with the Los Angeles Police Department whereupon just a few days after he joined them, he was killed i n an auto accident. The case is still a good one, hovrever, a nd our only chance of tracing down what this "ice particle plasma" might be i s to check with the radar squadron in Red Bluff, Oregon. Since this :i.s a military installation, I think it 1vould be better if we placed an autovon call to them next time I visit Blue Book. must apologize but the original original reports of xerox copies. ,.,rill be prorrr_f>tly for 1valking off 1-Tith the Saigon "For Information Only" case, has been returned. As far as I know I do not have any other here, u nless they inadvertently got mixed up vith a batch Rest assured that any original copies, should there be any, returned to your files. I am still surprised that no further investigation vras made of the Sai gon case. is cases like this, I am sure you must realize, that spa1.,rn the rumors that "the Air Force knows all about it" since to the average citizen it i s incon- ceivable that so striking a reported happening would go uninvestigated. DEARBORN OBSERVATORY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 60201 January 13, 1966 Major Hector Quintanilla USAF Chief, Aerial Phenomena Branch Wright-Patterson Air-Force Base Dayton, Ohio Dear Major: This is to report to you that Sergeant Moodypnd I are hard at it for these three days. I think that we will be able to clean up all of 1965. As I go over the 900 or so cases of '65, I am once again im- pressed by the inadequate quality of the data upon which the evalua- tions must be based. In some cases the term "insufficient data" is really a misnaner; there is enough databut it is of such poor quality that the cause of the sighting is unidentifiable rather than uniden- tified. To use the category "insufficient data" overly much weights the statistics so that our critics then say that this is just a handy catch-all to which we put everything that we can't find a ready ex- planation for. On the other hand, to say the case is "unidentified" is even worse because this is interpreted by our reading public to mean that scmething really mysterious is going on. The reason for its beihglunidentified is that the data do not permit any logical explanation. I would prefer the term '~dentifiable" or, better, nunidentifiable because of poor data" to either of the terms "insuf- ficient data" by 'itself, or ~!unidentified" by itself. I rather agree with public opinion that the term "unidentified" should be reserved for those cases which really do puzzle us even though we have reason- ably good data, by!which I mean largely that there was more than one observer, and that we have same time-space sequence of the reported Should there ever be any official inquiry fran the Pentagon about the conduct of our Project, I think it might be well to bring up the above points. I have for years, as you know, pleaded for immediate capability in the gathering of data so that evaluations could be placed on a much firmer foundation than they have been in the past, not because of any inherent incompetence in the evaluating office butsimply because of the inherent paucity of the data. Sincerely yours, TDPr (U?O}MaJ ~tan1lla/70916jmbo/12Dee67 ibf:r l967 UFO c se 1'1les Dr. J. Allen J!1nek 1. &tferen~ 10\lJ' reQUests tor spee1f1e UFO ease tiles. Th tollo""1118 report are torvar4 d tor your s~ and c ta. a . 26 February 1966, Bartlett, lel!; Hampahire b. 1 Jul7 196), Centerville, Oh1o c. 31 J\ll;y 1967, Indio.nspolia, Iniluw. (!. 21 June 1967, Las Vegas, e da 2. Our letter ot 7 ltoTemb4lr 1967 for"'arded twent,-... f1ve eases tor your stud)" and <:Om.ent.tl. '.rc ds.te \ie bnve not reee1ve4 ~ If possible, .. "'Uld )'OU pleaee bring 1au.r vr1 tton cox=ent.a 'lo.'i th JOU on 70\ll" next. trip to Vr1t;ht-Pa.tteraon An. We are attempting to eloae out the f1rat ten *>tlthe ot 1967 and vould like to e.dd your co=ente to our tilea. !bank ,ou tor ycur asa1atnnee 1n brl.n4iu our 1'11ea up to dat... DEARBORN OBSERVATORY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 60201 January 13, 1966 Major Hector Quintanilla USAF Chief, Aerial Phenomena Branch Wright-Patterson Air-Force Base Dear Major: This is to report to you that Sergeant Moodypnd I are hard at it for these three days. I think that we will be able to clean up all of 1965. As I go over the 900 or so cases of 65, I am once again im~ pressed by the inadequate quality of the data upon which the evalua- tions must be based. In some cases the term "insufficient data" is really a misnomer; there is enough data but it is of such poor quality that the cause of the sighting is unidentifiable rather than uniden- tified. To use the category "insufficient data" overly much weights the statistics so that our critics then say that this is just a handy catcoh-all to which we put everything that we can't find a ready ex- planation for. On the other hand, to say the case is ''unidentified" is even worse because this is interpreted by our reading public to mean that something really mysterious is going on. The reason for its beibg)unidenti.fied is that the data do not pennit any logical explanation. I would prefer the term ::un.identifiable" or, better, nunidenti.fiable because of poor data" to either of the terms "insuf- ficient data" by !itself, or !!unidentified" by itself. I rather agree with public opinion that the term "unidentified" should be reserved for those cases which really do puzzle us even though we have reason- ably good data, byj'which I mean largely that there was more than one observer, and that we have same time-space sequence of the reported Should there ever be any official inquiry from the Pentagon