n.v!Md Oct 80 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE FILE No Part No Thts co~rr is to be used only for offic:-2/ file serie> rt-cordt-d uoith Australian Arcbiles Fonn Number AR Ill is to be used for working papas. Rcrerr'}(J 10 1>.c1 oneo Retrrr('t(f o ARCH IV AL ACTION INSTRUCTIONS ON THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE FILING OF CORRES- PONDENCE AND THE HANDLING OF FILES ARE CONTAINED IN DEPARTMENTAL AM> SINGLE SERVICE MANUALS File Number CLOSELY RELATEO FILES ROYAL AUSTRALIAN TELEPHONE: 69 0550 TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS: "AIRCOMMAND. MELBOURNE" IN llEPlY QUOTE 5/6/Af.r( 83) HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT COMMAND VICTORIA BARRACKS MELBOURNE SC1 VIC UN-IDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS 1. Enclosed herewith is a copy of a lecture given by Professor James E. McDONALD in WASHINGTON regarding the UFO 2. Professor McDONALD has recently been in MELBOURNE for discussions with the CSIRO on meteorological problems, and at the same time, took the opportunity to present an address to members of associations interested in UFO activity. 3. The lecture papers enclosed \Vere brought to this Headquarters by a Mr FRANCESWILLIAMS who professes an avid interest in UFO's, for the information of the authorities handling UFO reports. (L. B. BROWN) Wing Commander Officer Commanding UFOS: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM Of OUR T!KES? s E. McDonald (Prepared !or presentat1on before the 1967 annual ceet1nq of the rican soc1ety of ~ewspaper Editors, washington, D. c., Apr11 SUHHARY -An onte~eio~ ar.aZ of ~"n~reda cf o"teta~dng UPO report, and pereon~t :n:er-_ ui~ue uith doaene of kN uitneaeee n ~porta~. caeee, have Led Me to the ~or:cZ"eion ~hat :h UFO prabz.,., i en of e:z:cc~d.,:gLj! grsat B<aen- tifi importance. Inetead a! de~eru~r:g the deecrtption of "noneenae probLe~ , unoh it ha8 had J"ring tucnt~ ~ears of O{~i~ia~ Mi~ha~ dl'ng it. uarrante the atte>:'t\011 o; ~r:.lf, pr~; and pubLic, not Jue~ ui:hin the ~" d S;a:o~a bt throu,ho:.: t ;,. u~r~d, ae a '"'"'oue probleM of firot-arJer eignf~ca~ue. Zhc crioue man~er in uhi~h ~his _prob~m hae ben kept au' of aig~t and m~nta>nad :" dierttp~<~tt ie t~za,lnltd her.,. Batnc r<U>por.s- bititv for ita avatemat~ ~iDrt~pra~ntation liee ui th A I r Fore ProJect BZwoboo.~ uhich, on ,;,t> baeie of firat~<Jnd knouL<.dgD, I ~a>: on!f acri.ba ac 11au~ng be., carn.,d a:<t " tho past da:~n Nears in a qutt4 aupltrficia~ and ~r.com pte'l.t mannr. rsar of A~r Foratt aeeuranc~a ha~e pt th pubLic, th preas, ~onu:~ and.thB !ain- l~lc ca~unit~ wndsr tnc m~preeson tna~ ;r,~ UFO problc~ uae baing atudicd uit~.thor~ oughnc and ocicntific zportiDe. Troa I nau roun~ :o bo co~plstel~ falee. Illwatratiu cza-pl dra~r. !ro-a Ultl"IJ Za:ac ea~fl, wiLL be deecribo1 to dc~onetrate h~o. It ia urged that th tiMe ie Zor.g o~erdue 'o,. a "uH-caZ. Congreaeio11al ir.vestigation of thv UFO problc~, an ir.vcctigatior. in which per- eon ot.teidc of o!flci.aZ A~r Force chan,.,z., cau put on l'ecord th aatoundlng h'i.s:or11 of the :Jay in ~hioh a probZc~ o! potentialty enormoua scientifio: i"'porta'laa hae been auapt ""d"r a ~g o! ridicule a"d M~Cr4p~sentatiDn ;or :~o rl:~ hyrotheei that th11 VFDe might be .:ztztatBrratJ"ial probtJf d4pit it uaer.o;ingZy to~ priori probability, ie ~kggeated ae .e Zeaa: ~natifactDrH h~poth~D~6 far gzpla~n~ng th~ oo~-avaiZabt~ VFD ovidn~c. INTRODUCTION June 24, 1967, will mark the twentieth anniversary of what we might whimsically call the "birth of the flying saucer. For just twenty years earlier, on the afternoon of June 24, 1947, Kenneth Arnold, a Bo~se busi- nessman fly1nq in his private a1rcraft, reported seeing a formation of nine disc-like obJects sk~ng ~long at high speed between him and d1stant Mt. Rainier. ue said that they moved in an unconventional manner "like a saucer would if you ak1pped lt across the water. A reporter who interviewed Arnold after he landed that even1ng in Pendleton, Oregon, coined the phrase "fly>ng saucers to add a feature-story twist to an observation that th1s exper1enced pilot had told 1n con- s~ernation -and a JOurnalistic era was thereby :.s one d1gs back through the subsequent hi~tory of the UFO problem, it becomes ev1dent that a wave of Uf~ aiqhtinq8 actually beqan several dllys prior to Arnold's observatlon, but 1t was not unLil about ~uly 4 that press incerest rose exponentially and "flyinq saucers" were headline news throughout the country. I hAve recently had the opportun1ty o! re:1ew1ng 11 c:ompllat1on of UFO s~ght1ngs for those first few weeks of what 1s usually reqarded as the beginning of UFO observat>ons, a compilation being prepared by T. R. Bloecher for publicauon later this yeor, probably by the Nat1onal In\~stigat1ons Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAPI. Although 1 was already fam1l1ar w1th much UFO h1story when I beqan to exazune Bloechcr's matenal, t was startled to see the large number of reports of high-speed unconventional objects that flooded into press offices throughout the country 1n that early period, far more than 1 had ever guessed. Only 4 small fraction of the reports were carried by national wire services, so it has been necessary for Bloccher to dig into old newspaper files in many major U. S . cities to ~earth the d1mensions of that wave of siqht- I cite this early per1od as exempl1fy1n9 much that has happend subsequently, althouqh most of the reports of that period have never been checked as were later cases, so one cannot yet regard the evidence for all the 1947 sight- inqs as conclusive. A mixture of denials led to a rather qu1ck fall-off in news value of the "flying saucers" 1n late 19~7. Hoaxes were headhned .;ith about as much ct11phas1s as wer e reports from experienced observers. The pub- lished reports fell off, and for awh1le it a9peared that one h~d w1tnessed just another silly season pheno~enon, as some newspaper- ~en described 1t. But, surpris>nqly, the UFO reports began cropping up again. Here and there they received press coverage, ~ostly non-~ire coverage in local paper.. By 1948, conslder- ably nore reports were com1ng ~n. and mil1tary concern (which had probably never died out) was responsible for establ1shing an official investigatory project, Project Sign (often loosely called "Project Saucer"). S1gn was set up ~anuary 22, 1948, w1th headquarters a t ~right-Patterson AFB, within the then newly- creat~d United States Air force. That date marks the beginning of A1r Force responsi- bility for 1nvestigating UFO phenomena, a respons1b1lity 1t carries to this date. I think it is rather str1king that USAF was exact~y seven days old when it was handed the UFO problem in 1949. Project S1gn gave way to "ProJect Grudge" in february, 1949; and, with ups and downs, Grudge cont1nued until about March, 1952, when it was superseded by "Project Bluebook," an organizational entity that surv1ves today, still headquartered at Wrlght-Patterson AFB. The summer of 1952 brought one of the greatest waves of UFO reports on record, and the first Bluebook Off1cer, Capt. E. J. Ruppclt, has related (Ref. ll the hectic efforts of his staff of 4b~t ten Air Foree p rsonr l t o kceF ~ec w _ th the reports t t. pou d 1.nto WP u that su:n:'!er. he famou tl shinQtc, ' a t ona-Airport a_ghtlng. o! July lq and 26, 19S2, wh h _nc_uded N\ r dar ob r ationa, ~ re1al a1r!1nes pilot obscrvatior~. nd grour ot3cr- vat1ons, created the rear st th1no to a ~nic stt ttor. thAt has c er evolv d fror UFO rqor Aft r hit House Uer"' and r.~ rou conqreas1on 1 nd Fr d mards for an account> q, pres on! r ~ ealltd and the entire series of rv tions re "explained" as ~u to 4" lo r dar Fropaga- tion and rage-type r fraction events. (I have carefully x 1ned Lhese official cx?lana- tl.ons and find th ent1rel~ 1n dequatc, 1nc1- dent~l~ .J Althoug pr sa attention cuts1ded ~ the race of thea assur ncas, Air Force con- cer behind-th -sc n s cort1nued, and early 1n tho follaJ1n9 year a panel of scientists was ~sser.bled to review t e situation. THE ROBERTSO~ REPORT A~O Jij( CIA T>,e Rob rtson PanC!l (chalred b\' Calteeh theoretical physicist 11. P. Robertson) rret 1n January, !953, end re"iewed selected UFO -apparently about ci9ht 1n detul and ut fifteen others on ~ briafng-basis. Two ..,ork1ng Clays o! ease-reviews followed by two days of s rl~inq and report-drafting con- stituted the entire actlvit~ of thi.s Panel during the period January l:-17. 1953. I describe that P nel's work in more than passing manner because J believe that ~ Rob~rtson ane1 marked a turnin" 001nt 1n the history of oro ln~at1~----- On the first of three visits to Project aluebook at WPAFB last s~-cr. I asked to sec the full report. of tte Robertson Panel and was g_ven that report by the present. 81 ~book of fleer. MAJ. If ector .u1ntanilla. lie informed me that he had "rout1ncly dec1a&&1fled" it ear11er on the basis of the "1~-year rule" cover1ng DOD doc nts. I made cxtens1ve notes from it And discussed its content w1~h Ksj. Qul~tanilla. On ay next trip to Bluebook, on J "C 20, 1 request. d a Xerox copy of the report. The copy was prepared for me, but not 91ven to me because a superior office~ suggested that since "another agency was h:volved. they'dluve to check before releasing it to m J rem1nded them that I alread~ had ex~ensive no~ s on it and that I had already "i"'"""sed 1ts contents w.th many scientific colleagu s around tho country. I was~swred ~h~t the1r check waa perfunctory and that I ~ould b s nt the copy 1~ a we k or two. In !act, I n v r rec iv< u. T'> "other a~sncy, tho Central Intolliq~ncc Agency, ruled that thl.ll document did not como under thoc "12- ~c<>r rill~ and reehasihed it. AlthOJgh " so- c .. tled "sanitized versior was later released the full document r mo1na undisclosed. A ' mlll'.bor of scc~ions of the "san>t>.,cd var.s hove been publ1shcd by John Lear, who asked for full rel as but qot only Lhe porti~l vers~on C!lef. 2J. 1 studi d the full version 1n unclaasoficd statas. M1lit3ry on~ sc1 ntiflc staff at WPAFB have be n fully awor of my possession 1nfor-nt1on for contbs. 1 have d1seuased y sc1~nt1 t I r r~ lt as o~ n lnformat10n >n no ~oy l a r 1nq o n the securt of t e ~n-ted State , d I ~all now describe cont er:t h r . I u rqo tl > t press and qres' d ~"~full a nd 1mm late release of the ent l.r c t xt. of the obertson Report, nclud1.r.g the CIA rcco= ndatto ns wlac>, ha..-e ba d such st!"or. b~ar>n'J o n the wa:, in wh1ch the A1r Force ~ se~u ntl treated the JFO p robl , that c~ r sc1e n t ists can ake the,r own , a1Lot1ons of the anno r in wh1ch sc1ent1f1~ pursuit o f t.h UFO proble~ wa s der~-led 1n 1953. Th s eient>sts cocpr1s1ng the Robertson Pane~ (Robertson, L"is 1~. Alvarez., Lloyd V. Berkner, Sar.uel A. Coudsreit, Thornton Page}. on the basis of what 1 must re'jard as a far too brief ex 1nat1on 01 the evidence already 1n Atr Force fl.l s as of January, 1953, ruled (!~rs~) that t.here was no v~dence of any hostile act1on in the UFO phen ena. In par- ~ieular they ruled (secondly! that there was no evidence for existence of ~ny "artifacts of' a host1le foreign paer 1n any of the records whtcb were subm~tted to them. And (th:a.rdly) they recommended an cdueat>onal program to acqua1nt the general public with the nature of various natural phenomena seen in the skie$ (meteors, vapor trails, haloes, balloons, etc.), the object1ve be1ng to "remove the aura of mystery" that the un1dent1fied G>bJects had "unfortunat.,ly" acquired. In v1ew of the rather limited ~ample of UFO eVldence 'Nhleh WIIS laid before this Panel, such conclusions were perhaps warranted. The crucial shortcoming was thJ.s: There 1s no evidence !:hat any of these f>ve men had pre- vious extens1ve conto1ct W>th the uro probl<:OM. pr1nc~pal eases they examined excluded s~e of the most interesting and s1gn1f1cant eases already on record (e. g., Un1ted A1rlines 1947; Ch1les-Rhitted, 1948: C. B. Moore, 1949;' T~baugh. 1949; Farc:ngton, 1950; ChiCago ' Southern Alrl>ncs, !950; TWA Airllnos, 1950; Ser:"our !less, 1950; lhd-Continent Airlines. 1951; Nash-Fortenberry, 1952; and many other very s1qn>fic~nt 1952 s:ghtings). And~ mere tw? days of rcv1cw o tho UFO data Cpr1or to go1ng 1nto report draft>ng session) would not be enough for all the wtons of science to sort out. the baffling nature ot t.h1s probl~. The only sc1ent~st present at these sessions who had ~lready exsrn1r.ed a substant1al number of reports was an associate member of the Panel, Dr. J . Allen Hynek. :;hen 1 asked him last June why he d1d not then speak out, on the basis of his then f1vo years oxper1enea as coief scient1flc consultant to the Air Force on OFO matters, hc; told me that he was "only small potatoes then and that it would have beer ;unpos:<le for hirn to s~ay that ~.:r!llncnt group. In r fleeting on all t~at 1 have learned n my past. year s work or t.hia problem, 1 r<><,J rtJ this four-day s~sslor o! the Robertson P4ncl as d p>votal poirt 1n UFO hlstory. For instead of a recommendation that tho problem be t kvn out of Alr Foree hands (on grounds of on-hostility of the UFOsJ and turn d ov r to sam se1 nt!Cic llger.e~ for >dequato study, t'>ec was a ost regrettable fourth reeomm nd t1on mad , 1n add. hon to tiiC'tliroe cit ., abov , a reeomrnenda- tlor. made at the spcc1f1c request of CIA repre- sentatives present at the final sessions of this Panel. (CIA rcproscntat1vcs ltsted 1n the repor= g1vcn to me on June 6, 1966, tnclud~ or. H. Marshall Chadwell, Hr. Ralp L. Cl-rk, and . Phtl-p G. Strong. Top-r nk1n9 USA< representative present was Brig. Gc~eral Garland, ch1ef of the Aic Technical In~ll1 qenee C~and. F. c. Durant and J. A. Hynek wc~c assoctato ~rs of ~c Pane~.) Whereas tho first three rec~ndat.or.s were later disclosed l~ough not for about ~lvP vcarsJ, the fourth recommendation has never been fully r ported in a manner ~at pr..,.s, public, Congress, and scien<=e can cvAl u- ate. However, enough of that fourth recomcen- dat10n 1s described in Lear's suo=ary of ~e "sarttired version ~ot even p~rsons who have not seen the ent1re document, as I have, can s-nse that a minor tragedy of sc1enee may have been effected 1n January, 1~53. The fo1.rth rec:ommend4t10I\ mad" bJ' the CIA, asked for a aystemilUC "debunltinq o( the flvlnq saucers, to use tho actual langu~qe or-t~ document. And the stated ObJeCtlvo of ~e "debunk1ng" was to "reduce public lnterest in U I W1Bh to make very cl~ar th~t. on the ba~is ot my examination of the tull context of ~is fourth recommendation, I do not regard this as a dark and sinister action-Df a covert body trying to dece1Ve the ci ti:enr:, of the n~tion. Ril~or, the re~son behind th1s roqrett~blc dec.o1on (that appears to h3ve been acted upon so very faithfully by Project Blue- book e.,r since) was entirely underatand~le when ~een fron a sdlely national-sccur1ty V1ew- nnTnt~c unprcce entCd wave of UFO reports of 19~2. sone 1500 )USt in offia1al Bluebook files alone, tied Up Air For~ 1ntcll1qence P"rsonnel 3nd intelligence machinery to an ala~ing d..-qree. G1v.,n the scientists' opinion that ~e~e was no evidence th~t the UFOs cace from any terrestrial power hostile to the u.s. , 1t seeccd to security people to be urgently lmper- tant to reduce ~is "noise that might cover up r~al "signals" com1nq into intolligen<=e channels. Hence, v1ewed nllrrowly fro= security v" :nts, lt mil~ good sense to get th1s noise suppressed. It has indeed been effec- t!.ely suppressed in t.he ensuing fifteen years. AtR FORCE REGULATIO~ ZOC-2 r the CIA recorn- tl,c Court'> 1 te~:~ 1 port t A1r av~!lilble; but all unknOMns were to 90 to Blue- This had iln effect that ~s well k~own to a!l who have stud1ed th1s preble~ closely. At Bluebook the most outr4gcousy unsc1cntifi<= "explnnat1ons" were assgned to i~portant sight1ngs. Cases bearing not the slightest rese=blance to feathered creatures wore called "b1r~s. and so= of the ost 1eprob~le "balloon" phe na in all the history of balloon1ng can be found in Blueboo~ f>les. "Astrono:_cal" was tilqged onto cases that are no oore astronom1cal ~an orn>tholoqical: ilnd so it "'ent. Tl"e "percentage of unidentifted" wa,, by the f1at of sc1entif1cally untratn~d Bluebook offic rs, stead1ly reduced to a min- rn=. And sctence be damr 1. - 1 could d>seuss, for tours, spec~f1c details of cases reported stncc 1953 fo~ which Bluebook has q1ven Utterly unreaso~able "explannt1ons," C4ses I have gone over 1n det~1l and many 01 whose k y wHnesses I h.ove personally interv1ewed. The onlr ron-mil>tary person who has had cont1nu1ng opport1Jn1ty to examine these cases was the Bluebook consult- ant, Or. J . A. llynok, who h'!s held that role cont>nuously for e>ghtecn lonq years. I have discussed some of the famous holders with him and with Air For<=c personnel. 1 can onl~ sa; here that l am qui~o d1ssatisfted w1th such answers ~a I have been able to secure. In those Oluebook flles have la1n hundreds of cases that received no adequate schnt1hc review, that have often be<>n explained "'"BY 1n such r>diculous manner that even amateur astronomers or untro1ned cit1zens have publ1cly complained over tho absurd~ty of the offoc!al explanat1ons. rtr.d ~uch more dis- tresslng have been the many <=ases 1n wh1ch rc~pcnsible C-tizcns have, 1n all good fa1th, repor<ed s1gn1!1cant enco tcrs w1~ unJdenti- f~ed obJects at close range, objects defying explanation in convent10n4l sc1ent1f1c or technologlcal terms, only to have the Pent~gon press desk rele~sc offtc~al explanations 1~ terms of "t-..1nkllng star" and 1nversion, "rotrages, "balloon, "refuel1ng tanker, ilnd the like. Such explanat1ons, put out as 1! they resulted frao a careful A1r Force c:hec,;, made the c>ttzens who reported see1ng strange Ob)ects !eel, as one Vlctim put it to me, "like 1d1ots. " I truly doubt that Alr Force personn<>l at WPAFB and the Pentagon can have any notion of tho b1ttcrncns they have created among persons who h~ve beon made the butt of rid1cule by these "debunk1ng .. policies that trace back so clearly to the 19~3 dccis1ons. The net offect,over the ~oars, of such polic1es and procedures has been cnt>rcly understandable. Newspapet-editors, not having stafr to send out to chccl: even the sighttngs 1n the1r own VlCin> ty ln a m~nn<'r thilt could be rcrmcd scientific, an~ havlnq no ~ood reason to suspect that ~c Air Fore would be supcr- f~c>ally inventing oxplnnat1ons with cssen- tl.all~ no scient~f1c content, quickly grOJ c:on- Vlncea that there must not be an~tning to th.z UFO phenC>mena. On<= ~.s com'lCUon was fairly well established, tt natur 1 proponsitie~ or JOUrna)lStS to ~re!or wr tl q ! aturo storleS tin or l .r ::JOUS Klll1an 1 t he, long wtth NICAP f1les and the ~dcncc" (Ref. 3) have 1 a. The effect. by the late 1950' s was cl rly ev1dent in the reluc~ancc of atrllnes ptlota to report sight1ngs, a reluc- tance stronqly enhanc:t:-d, in some insunces. by management d rect\vea from airl1nca offices instructing their pilots that they were no