Declassified studies of UFOs:
This is the Durant Report, including the Robertson Panel report. The reading of the document is sufficient
to cause some bewilderment. A few comments: "There are not enough quality data about UFOs ", therefore, "there are no UFOs",
therefore "we recommend to abandon any effort to improve the quality of the data" since "the lack of quality in the data
proves that there is no UFO." This is really a debunker's masterplan, without a single trace of consistence, that CIA
ever wrote. Also note that the discussion on the filmed Tremonton UFOs does not have its place in this page but
the suggestion that it shows a flock of seagull is laughable. Note the final dazing recommendations to organize the
"debunking" of UFOs for the general public, including Walt Disney cartoon, television shows, military training,
and the "watch" of the private ufology groups. This is a document showing the organization of the cover-up
of the phenomenon. Spending money on UFOs is not reasonable, unless for large debunking programs. The only
open question is to know if the authors believed sincerely that the UFOs are not real (a tentative answer is here). But if you can read between
the lines, you can distinguish the traces of the internal conflicts in the Robertson committee.
1953: THE DURANT PANEL REPORT:
This report is known as the Durant report of the Robertson Panel proceedings, the complete title is
"REPORT OF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS CONVENED BY OFFICE OF
SCIENTIFIC INTELLIGENCE, CIA January 14 - 18, 1953"
The "Durant Report" and the "Robertson Panel Report" are indeed different
items, but the Panel report is contained in the Durant Report, which is a detailed report
of the Panel proceedings.
This is the latest, most complete version available released by the
Central Intelligence Agency. Comparison with several other versions
released over the years seem to confirm that. For example it includes the "Tabs"
at the end.
The release of the document through FOIA requests has not been easy.
The requests sent to the National Archives were unsuccessful, as the Durant Report was in
the custody of the CIA who did not provide a copy to the National Archives. They did later.
Several requests to the CIA have shown that there are "different versions" of the documents.
A "sanitized" version of the Panel Report (Tab A) only was
released long ago through the efforts of Dr. Leon Davidson and another,
still "sanitized" yet more complete version of the whole document through
the efforts of Anne Druffel. Also, a sanitized version was published as Appendix Y in The
Condon Report. Several versions, or incomplete copies, came as part of the nearly 900 pages of UFO related
material the CIA had previously declassified and had provided to other FOIA requestors.
The bitmaps scanned documents I provide are from the CIA FOIA web site.
None of the copies obtained from the CIA were completely
legible. All differed in some detail: some were on legal sized
paper, some on letter sized paper, some double spaced, some single spaced,
no version had the signatures of the Panel members. Typefaces, that
is typewriters, differed between the versions, as did line breaks and pagination.
All this is a clear indication that several versions of the
report have been prepared and released by the CIA over the years and were circulating.
NOTES:
[ ] Items in square brackets blacked out (actual text if visible, "BLACKED OUT" if not visible)
{ } Items in curly brackets describe items not possible to represent in ASCII.
For the original presentation of the version on the CIA web site, you can view the scanned versions
downloaded from their site, and converted from BMP to JPG for quicker access.
Note that some pages are barely readable:
In the text version provided underneath, I have maintained the original page breaks
position, I have altered the formatting to fit a web suitable text presentation.
The CIA caption for these files in the CIA most requested FOIA documents
online database reads:
Title: REPORT OF MEETINGS OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC INTELLIGENCE SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR
Abstract:
Pages: 0032
Pub Date: February 15, 1953
Release Date: November 16, 1978
Keywords: UFO SIGHTINGS |UFO |MEETING |SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL |TREMONTON |DURANT REPORT
Case Number: F-1975-03653
Copyright: 0
Release Decision: RIPPUB
Classification: U
THE DOCUMENT:
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
REPORT OF MEETINGS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL
ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
CONVENED BY OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC INTELLIGENCE, CIA
January 14-18, 1953
RELEASED____________________
F. C. Durant
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
--------------------------------------------------------------
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
INDEX
|
|
Page |
| Purpose |
|
1 |
| Part I: |
History of Meetings of Panel |
1 |
| Part II: |
Comments and Suggestions of Panel |
7 |
|
General |
7 |
|
On Lack of Danger |
8 |
|
Air Force Reporting System |
9 |
|
Artifacts of Extraterrestrial Origin |
10 |
|
Tremonton, Utah, Sighting |
11 |
|
Potential Related Dangers |
15 |
|
Geographical Locations of Unexplained |
|
Sightings |
15 |
|
Instrumentation to Obtain Data |
16 |
|
Radar Problem of Mutual Interference |
18 |
|
Unexplained Cosmic Ray Phenomena |
19 |
|
Educational Program |
19 |
|
Unofficial Investigating Groups |
23 |
|
Increase in Number of Sightings |
24 |
| Report of Panel |
Tab A |
| List of Personnel Concerned with Meetings |
Tab B |
| List of Documentary Evidence Presented |
Tab C |
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
16 February 1953
| MEMORANDUM FOR |
: Assistant Director for Scientific Intelligence |
| FROM |
: F. C. Durant |
| SUBJECT |
Report of Meetings of the Office of Scientific Intelligence Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects, January 14-18, 1953 |
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to present:
|
a. |
A brief history of the meetings of the O/SI Advisory Panel On Unidentified Flying Objects (Part I), |
|
b. |
An unofficial supplement to the official Panel Report to AD/SI setting forth comments and suggestions of the Panel Members which they believed were inappropriate for inclusion in the formal report (Part II). |
PART I: HISTORY OF MEETINGS
GENERAL
After consideration of the subject of "unidentified flying objects" at the 4
December meeting of the Intelligence Advisory Committee, the following action was agreed:
"The Director of Central Intelligence will:
a. Enlist the services of selected scientists to review and appraise
the available evidence in the light of pertinent scientific theories...."
Following the delegation of this action to the Assistant Director for Scientific
Intelligence and preliminary investigation,
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
an Advisory Panel of selected scientists was assembled. In
cooperation with the Air Technical Intelligence Center, case histories of
reported sightings and related material were made available for their
study and consideration.
Present at the initial meeting (0930 Wednesday, 14 January) were: Dr. H. P. Robertson, Dr. Luis
W. Alvarez, Dr. Thornton Page, Dr. Samuel A. Goudsmit, Mr. Philip G.
Strong, Lt. Col. Frederick C. E. Oder (P&E Division), Mr. David B.
Stevenson (W&E Division), and the writer. Panel Member, Dr. Lloyd V.
Berkner, was absent until Friday afternoon. Messrs. Oder and
Stevenson were present throughout the sessions to familiarize themselves
with the subject, represent the substantive interest of their Divisions,
and assist in administrative support of the meetings. (A list of personnel
concerned with the meetings is given in Tab A.). <1>
WEDNESDAY MORNING
The AD/SI opened the meeting,
reviewing CIA interest in the subject and action taken. This review
included the mention of the O/SI Study Group of August 1952 (Strong, Eng
and Durant) culminating in the briefing of the DCI, the ATIC November 21
briefing, 4 December IAC consideration, visit to ATIC (Chadwell, Robertson
and Durant), and O/SI concern over potential dangers to national security
indirectly related to these sightings. Mr. Strong enumerated these
potential dangers. Following this introduction, Dr. Chadwell turned the
meeting over to
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-2-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
Dr. Robertson as Chairman of the Panel. Dr. Robertson
enumerated the evidence available and requested consideration of specific
reports and letters be taken by certain individuals present (Tab B).
<2>
For example, case histories involving radar or radar and
visual sightings were selected for Dr. Alvarez while reports of Green
Fireball phenomena, nocturnal lights, and suggested programs of
investigation were routed to Dr. Page. Following these remarks, the
motion pictures of the sightings at Tremonton, Utah (2 July 1952) and
Great Falls, Montana (15 August 1950) were shown. The meeting adjourned at
1200.
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON
The second meeting of the Panel opened at
1400. Lt. R. S. Neasham, USN, and Mr. Harry Woo of the USN Photo
Interpretation Laboratory, Anacostia, presented the results of their
analyses of the films mentioned above. This analysis evoked considerable
discussion as elaborated upon below. Besides Panel members and CIA
personnel, Capt. E. J. Ruppelt, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Mr. Dewey J.
Fournet, Capt. Harry B. Smith (2-a-2), and Dr. Stephen Possony were
present.
Following the Photo Interpretation
Lab presentation, Mr. E. J. Ruppelt spoke for about 40 minutes on ATIC
methods of handling and evaluating reports of sightings and their efforts
to improve the quality of reports. The meeting was adjourned at
1715.
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-3-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
THURSDAY MORNING
The third and fourth meetings of
the Panel were held Thursday, 15 January, commencing at 0900 with a
two-hour break for luncheon. Besides Panel members and CIA personnel, Mr.
Ruppelt and Dr. Hynek were present for both sessions. In the morning, Mr.
Ruppelt continued his briefing on ATIC collection and analysis procedures.
The Project STORK support at Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, was
described by Dr. Hynek. A number of case histories were
discussed in detail and a motion picture film of seagulls was shown.
A two hour break for lunch was taken at 1200.
THURSDAY AFTERNOON
At 1400 hours Lt. Col. Oder gave a
40-minute briefing of Project TWINKLE, the investigatory project
conducted by the Air Force Meteorological Research Center at Cambridge,
Mass. In this briefing he pointed out the many problems of setting up and
manning 24-hour instrumentation watches of patrol cameras searching for
sighting of U.F.O.'s.
At 1615 Brig. Gen William M.
Garland joined the meeting with AD/SI. General Garland expressed his
support of the Panel's efforts and stated three personal opinions:
|
|
a. |
That greater use of Air Force intelligence officers
in the field (for follow-up investigation) appeared desirable,
but that they required thorough
briefing. |
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-4-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
|
|
b. |
That vigorous effort should be made to declassify as
many of the reports as possible. |
|
|
c. |
That some increase in the ATIC section devoted to
U.F.O. analysis was indicated. |
This meeting was adjourned at
1700.
FRIDAY MORNING
The fifth session of the Panel
convened at 0900 with the same personnel present as enumerated for
Thursday (with the exception of Brig. Gen. Garland).
From 0900 - 1000 there was general
discussion and study of reference material. Also, Dr. Hynek read a
prepared paper making certain observations and conclusions. At 1000 Mr.
Fournet gave a briefing on his fifteen months experience in Washington as
Project Officer for U.F.O.'s and his personal conclusions. There was
considerable discussion of individual case histories of sightings to which
he referred. Following Mr. Fournet's presentation, a number of
additional case histories were examined and discussed with Messrs.
Fournet, Ruppelt, and Hynek. The meeting adjourned at 1200 for
luncheon.
FRIDAY AFTERNOON
This session opened at 1400.
Besides Panel members and CIA personnel, Dr. Hynek was present. Dr. Lloyd
V. Berkner, as Panel Member, was present at this meeting for the first
time. Progress of the meetings was reviewed by the Panel Chairman
and tentative
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-5-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
conclusions reached. A general discussion followed and
tentative recommendations considered. It was agreed that the Chairman
should draft a report of the Panel to AD/SI that evening for review by the
Panel the next morning. The meeting adjourned at 1715.
SATURDAY MORNING
At 0945 the Chairman opened the
seventh session and submitted a rough draft of the Panel Report to the
members. This draft had been reviewed and approved earlier by Dr.
Berkner. The next two and one-half hours were consumed in discussion
and revision of the draft. At 1100 the AD/SI joined the meeting and
reported that he had shown and discussed a copy of the initial rough draft
to the Director of Intelligence, USAF, whose reaction was favorable.
At 1200 the meeting was adjourned.
SATURDAY AFTERNOON
At 1400 the eighth and final
meeting of the Panel was opened. Discussion and rewording of certain
sentences of the Report occupied the first hours. (A copy of the final
report is appended as Tab C.) <3>
This was followed by a review of work accomplished by the
Panel and restatement of individual Panel Member's opinions and
suggestions on details that were felt inappropriate for inclusion in the
formal report. It was agreed that the writer would incorporate these
comments in an internal report to the AD/SI. The material below
represents this information.
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-6-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
PART II: CONCERNS AND SUGGESTIONS OF PANEL
GENERAL
The Panel Members were impressed (as have been others, including OS/I personnel) in the lack
of sound data in the great majority of case histories; also, in the lack
of speedy follow-up due primarily to the modest size and limited
facilities of the ATIC section concerned.
Among the case histories of significant sightings discussed in detail were the following:
|
Bellefontaine, Ohio (1 August 1952); Tremonton, Utah (2 July 1952); |
|
Great Falls, Montana (15 August 1950); |
|
Yaak, Montana (1 September 1952); |
|
Washington, D.C. area (19 July 1952); and |
|
Haneda A.F.B., Japan (5 August 1952); |
|
Port Huron, Michigan (29 July 1952); and |
|
Presque Isle, Maine (10 October 1952). |
After review and discussion of these cases (and about 15 others, in less
detail), the Panel concluded that reasonable explanations could be suggested for most sightings and "by deduction and scientific method it
could be induced (given additional data) that other cases might be explained in a similar manner." The Panel pointed out that because
of the brevity of some sightings (e.g. 2-3 seconds) and the inability of the witnesses to express themselves clearly (sometimes) <4> that
conclusive explanations could not be expected for every case reported. Furthermore, it was considered that, normally, it would be
a great waste of effort to try to solve most of the sightings, unless such action would benefit
a training and educational program (see below). The writings of Charles Fort were referenced to show
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-7-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
that "strange things in the sky" had been recorded for
hundreds of years. It appeared obvious that there was no single
explanation for a majority of the things seen. The presence of radar and
astronomical specialists on the Panel proved of value at once in their
confident recognition of phenomena related to their fields. It was
apparent that specialists in such additional fields as psychology,
meteorology, aerodynamics, ornithology and military air operations would
extend the ability of the Panel to recognize many more categories of little-known phenomena.
ON LACK OF DANGER
The Panel concluded unanimously that there was no evidence of a direct threat to national security in the
objects sighted. Instances of "Foo Fighters" were cited. These were unexplained phenomena sighted by aircraft pilots during World War II in
both European and Far East theaters of operation wherein "balls of light" would fly near or with the aircraft and maneuver rapidly. They were
believed to be electrostatic (similar to St. Elmo's fire) or electromagnetic phenomena or possibly light reflections from ice crystals
in the air, but their exact cause or nature was never defined. Both Robertson and Alvares had been concerned in the investigation of these
phenomena, but David T. Griggs (Professor of Geophysics at the University of California at Los Angeles) is believed to have been the most
knowledgeable person on this subject. If the term "flying saucers" had been popular in 1943-1945, these objects would
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-8-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
have been so labeled. It was interesting that in at
least two cases reviewed that the object sighted was categorized by
Robertson and Alvarez as probably "Foo Fighters", to date unexplained but
not dangerous; they were not happy thus to dismiss the sightings by
calling them names. It was their feeling that these phenomena are not
beyond the domain of present knowledge of physical sciences, however.
AIR FORCE REPORTING SYSTEM
It was the Panel's opinion that some of the Air Force concern over U.F.O.'s (notwithstanding Air Defense
Command anxiety over fast radar tracks) was probably caused by public
pressure. The result today is that the Air Force has instituted a
fine channel for receiving reports of nearly anything anyone sees in the
sky and fails to understand. This has been particularly encouraged
in popular articles on this and other subjects, such as space travel and
science fiction. The result is the mass receipt of low-grade reports
which tend to overload channels of communication with material quite
irrelevant to hostile objects that might some day appear. The Panel
agreed generally that this mass of poor-quality reports containing little,
if any, scientific data was of no value. Quite the opposite, it was
possibly dangerous in having a military service foster public concern in
"nocturnal meandering lights." The implication being, since the
interested agency was military, that these objects were or might be
potential direct threats to national security. Accordingly, the need
for deemphasization made itself apparent. Comments on a possible
educational program are enumerated below.
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-9-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
It was the opinion of Dr. Robertson that the "saucer" problem had been found to be different in nature from
the detection and investigation of German V-1 and V-2 guided missiles prior to their operational use in World War II. In this 1943-1944
intelligence operation (CROSSBOW), there was excellent intelligence and by June 1944 there was material evidence of the existence of "hardware"
obtained from crashed vehicles in Sweden. This evidence gave the investigating team a basis upon which to operate. The absence of any
"hardware" resulting from unexplained U.F.O. sightings lends a "will-of-the wisp) nature to the ATIC problem. The results of their
investigation, to date, strongly indicate that no evidence of hostile act or danger exists. Furthermore, the current reporting system would
have little value in the case of detection of enemy attack by conventional aircraft or guided missiles; under such conditions "hardware" would be
available almost at once.
ARTIFACTS OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN
It was interesting to note that none of the members of the Panel were loath to accept that this earth
might be visited by extra-terrestrial intelligent beings of some sort,
some day. What they did not find was any evidence that related the
objects sighted to space travelers. Mr. Fournet, in his
presentation, showed how he had eliminated ach of the known and probable
causes of sightings leaving him "extra-terrestrial" as the only one
remaining in many cases. Fournet's background as an aeronautical
engineer and technical intelligence
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-10-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
officer (Project Officer, BLUEBOOK for 15 months) could not
be slighted. However, the Panel could not accept any of the cases
cited by him because they were raw, unevaluated reports. Terrestrial
explanations of the sightings were suggested in some cases and in others
the time of sighting was so short as to cause suspicion of visual
impressions. It was noted by Dr. Goudsmit and others that
extraterrestrial artifacts, if they did exist, are no cause for alarm;
rather, they are in the realm of natural phenomena subject to scientific
study, just as cosmic rays were at the time of their discovery 20 to 30
years ago. This was an attitude in which Dr. Robertson did not
concur, as he felt that such artifacts would be of immediate and great
concern not only to the U.S. but to all countries. (Nothing like a
common threat to unite peoples! )
Dr. Page noted that present astronomical knowledge of the
solar system makes the existence of intelligent beings (as we know the
term) elsewhere than on the earth extremely unlikely, and the
concentration of their attention by any controllable means confined to any
one continent of the earth quite preposterous.
TREMONTON, UTAH, SIGHTING
This case was considered
significant because of the excellent documentary evidence in the form of
Kodachrome motion picture films (about 1600 frames). The Panel
studied these films, the case history, ATIC's interpretation, and received
a briefing by representatives of the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory
on their analysis of the film. This team had expended (at Air Force
request) approximately
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-11-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
1000 man hours of professional and sub-professional time in
the preparation of graph plots of individual frames of the film, showing
apparent and relative motion of objects and variation in their light
intensity. It was the opinion of the P.I.L. representatives that the
objects sighted were not birds, balloons or aircraft, were "not
reflections because there was no blinking while passing through 60 degrees
of arc" and were, therefore, "self-luminous." Plots of motion and
variation in light intensity of the objects were displayed. While
the Panel Members were impressed by the evident enthusiasm, industry and
extent of effort of the P.I.L. team, they could not accept the conclusions
reached. Some of the reasons for this were as follows:
a. A semi-spherical object
can readily produce a reflection of sunlight without "blinking" through
60" of arc travel.
b. Although no data was
available on the "albedo" of birds or polyethylene balloons in bright
sunlight, the apparent motions, sizes and brightnesses of the objects were
considered strongly to suggest birds, particularly after the Panel viewed
a short film showing high reflectivity of seagulls in bright sunlight.
c. P.I.L. description of the
objects sighted as "circular, bluish-white" in color would be expected in
cases of specular reflections of sunlight from convex surfaces where the
brilliance of the reflection would obscure other portions of the object.
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-12-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
d. Objects in the Great Falls
case were believed to have probably been aircraft, and the bright lights
such reflections.
e. There was no valid reason
for the attempt to relate the objects in the Tremonton sighting to those
in the Great Falls sighting. This may have been due to
misunderstanding in their directive. The objects in the Great Falls
sighting are strongly suspected of being reflections of aircraft known to
have been in the area.
f. The intensity change in
the Tremonton lights was too great for acceptance of the P.I.L. hypothesis
that the apparent motion and changing intensity of the lights indicated
extremely high speed in small orbital paths.
g. Apparent lack of guidance
of investigators by those familiar with U.F.O. reports and explanations.
h. Analysis of light
intensity of objects made from duplicate rather than original film.
The original film was noted to have a much lighter background (affecting
relative brightness of object) and the objects appeared much less bright.
i. Method of obtaining data
of light intensity appeared faulty because of unsuitability of equipment
and questionable assumptions in making averages of readings.
j. No data had been obtained
on the sensitivity of Kodachrome film to light of various intensities
using the same camera type at the same lens openings.
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-13-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
k. Hand "jitter" frequencies
(obtainable from early part of Tremonton film) were not removed from the
plots of the "single pass plots" at the end of the film.
The Panel believed strongly that
the data available on this sighting was sufficient for positive
identification if further data is obtained by photographing polyethylene
"pillow" balloons released near the site under similar weather conditions,
checking bird flight and reflection characteristics with competent
ornithologists and calculating apparent "G" forces acting upon objects
from their apparent tracks. It was concluded that the results of
such tests would probably lead to creditable explanations of value in an
educational or training program. However, the Panel noted that the
cost in technical manpower effort required to follow up and explain every
one of the thousand or more reports received through channels each year
(1,900 in 1952) could not be justified. It was felt that there will
always be sightings, for which complete data is lacking, that can only be
explained with disproportionate effort and with a long time delay, if at
all. The long delay in explaining a sighting tends to eliminate any
intelligence value. The educational or training program should have
as a major purpose the elimination of popular feeling that every sighting,
no matter how poor the data, must be explained in detail.
Attention should be directed to the requirement among
scientists that a new phenomena, to be accepted, must be completely and
convincingly documented. In other words, the burden of proof is on
the sighter, not the explainer.
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-14-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
POTENTIAL RELATED DANGERS
The Panel Members were in agreement
with O/SI opinion that, although evidence of any direct threat from these
sightings was wholly lacking, related dangers might well exist resulting
from:
a. Misidentification of actual enemy artifacts by defense personnel.
b. Overloading of emergency
reporting channels with "false" information ("noise to signal ratio"
analogy -- Berkner).
c. Subjectivity of public to
mass hysteria and greater
vulnerability to possible
enemy psychological warfare.
Although not the concern of CIA,
the first two of these problems may seriously affect the Air Defense
intelligence system, and should be studied by experts, possibly under
ADC. If U.F.O.'s become discredited in a reaction to the "flying
saucer" scare, or if reporting channels are saturated with false and
poorly documented reports, our capability of detecting hostile activity
will be reduced.
Dr. Page noted that more competent screening or filtering of
reported sightings at or near the source is required, and that this can
best be accomplished by an educational program.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OF UNIDENTIFIED SIGHTINGS
The map prepared by ATIC showing
geographic locations of officially reported unexplained sightings (1952
only) was examined by the Panel.
This map showed clusters in certain strategic areas such as
Los Alamos. This might be explained on the basis of 24-hour watchful guard
and
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-15-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
awareness of security measures near such locations. On
the other hand, there had been no sightings in the vicinity of sensitive
related AE establishments while there were occasionally multiple cases of
unexplained sightings in non-strategic areas. Furthermore, there
appeared to be no logical relationship to population centers.
The Panel could find no ready explanation for these
clusters. It was noted, however, that if terrestrial artifacts were
to be observed it would be likely that they would be seen first near
foreign areas rather than central U. S.
INSTRUMENTATION TO OBTAIN DATA
The Panel was of the opinion that
the present ATIC program to place 100 inexpensive 35 mm. stereo cameras in
the hands of various airport control tower operators would probably
produce little valuable data related to U.F.O.'s. However, it was
recognized that such action would tend to allay public concern in the
subject until an educational program had taken effect. It was
believed that procurement of these cameras was partly the result of public
pressure in July 1952. With the poor results of the year-long
Project TWINKLE program of 24-hours instrumentation watch (two frames of
film showing nothing distinguishable), a widespread program of
sky-watching would not be expected to yield much direct data of
value.
There was considerable discussion
of a possible "sky patrol" by amateur astronomers (Hynek) and by
wide-angle cameras (Page). Dr. Page and Dr. Robertson pointed out
that at present a considerable fraction
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-16-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
of the sky is now -- and has been for many years -- under
surveillance every clear night in several meteor and aurora observing
programs as well as sky mapping programs at the various locations listed
below. Although the attention of these astronomers is largely directed
toward identified rather than unidentified objects, no case of any
striking unidentified object is known to Dr. Page or Dr. Hynek. Such
an object would most certainly be reported if found on patrol
plates.
A case was cited where an
astronomer refused to interrupt his exposure in order to photograph an
alleged sighting in a different part of the sky. This led Dr. Hynek
to say that, if a program of watching could be an adjunct of planned
astronomical programs, little cost would be involved and that the trained
astronomical personnel might photograph a sighting of an unidentified
object.
The location of some of these
programs and their directors are believed to be:
a. Harvard University,
Cambridge and New Mexico (meteor patrol) - Whipple.
b. Yerkes Observatory,
University of Chicago and Fort Davis, Texas (several programs)--Meinel
(auroras), Kuiper (asteroids), Morgan (wide angle camera).
c. University of Alaska,
Fairbanks (aurorae) - Elvey
d. Dominion Observatory,
Ottawa (meteors) - Millman
e. Palomar Observatory,
California (sky map) - Minkowski
f. Lick Observatory,
California (sky map) - Shane
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-17-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
It was agreed by the Panel that no
government-sponsored program of optical nation-wide sky patrol is
worthwhile at the present time, and that the encouragement of amateur
astronomers to undertake such a program might have the adverse effect of
over-emphasizing "flying saucer" stories in the public mind.
However, the issue of radar scope cameras for recording peculiar radar
echoes would serve several purposes, including the better understanding of
radar interference as well as identification of U.F.O.'s.
RADAR PROBLEM OF MUTUAL INTERFERENCE
This characteristic problem of
radar operation wherein the pulse signal (of approximately the same
frequency) from station A may be picked up on the screen of station B and
show as a high-speed track or series of dots was recognized to have
probably caused a number of U.F.O. reports. This problem was
underlined by information received indicating ADC concern in solving this
problem of signal identification before service use of very high-speed
aircraft or guided missiles (1955-1956).<5> Dr. Berkner
believed that one answer to this problem was the use of a "doppler filter"
in the receiving circuit. Dr. Alvarez suggested that the problem
might be better solved by the use of a "controlled jitter" wherein the
operator receiving "very fast tracks" (on the order of 1000- 10,000
m.p.h.) would operate a circuit which would alter slightly his station's
pulse frequency rate. If the signal received on the screen had been
caused by mutual interference with another station, the track would now
show itself at a different distance
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-18-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
from the center of the screen, if it still appeared at
all. Dr. Alvarez felt such a technical solution was simpler and
would cost much less than a "doppler filter."
UNEXPLAINED COSMIC RAY PHENOMENA
Two reported cases were examined:
one at Palomar Mountain, California, in October 1949, when cosmic ray
counters went "off scale for a few seconds," apparently while a "V" of
flying saucers was observed visually; and two, a series of observations by
the "Los Alamos Bird Watchers Association" from August 1950 to January
1951, when cosmic ray coincidence counters behaved queerly. Circuit
diagrams and records were available for the latter, and Dr. Alvarez was
able quickly to point out that the recorded data were undoubtedly due to
instrumental effects that would have been recognized as such by more
experienced observers.
The implication that radioactive
effects were correlated with unidentified flying objects in these two
cases was, therefore, rejected by the Panel.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
The Panel's concept of a
broad educational program integrating efforts of all concerned agencies
was that it should have two major aims: training and
"debunking." The training aim would
result in proper recognition of unusually illuminated objects (e.g.,
balloons, aircraft reflections) as well as natural phenomena (meteors,
fireballs, mirages, noctilucent clouds). Both visual and radar recognition
are concerned. There would be many
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-19-
|
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
levels in such education from enlisted personnel to command
and research personnel. Relative emphasis and degree of explanation
of different programs would correspond to the categories of duty (e.g.,
radar operators; pilots; control tower operators; Ground Observer Corps
personnel; and officers and enlisted men in other categories). This
training should result in a marked reduction in reports caused by
misidentification and resultant confusion.
The "debunking" aim would result in
reduction in public interest in "flying saucers" which today evokes a
strong psychological reaction. This education could be accomplished by
mass media such as television, motion pictures, and popular
articles. Basis of such education would be actual case histories
which had been puzzling at first but later explained. As in the case
of conjuring tricks, there is much less stimulation if the "secret" is
known. Such a program should tend to reduce the current gullibility
of the public and consequently their susceptibility to clever hostile
propaganda. The Panel noted that the general absence of Russian
propaganda based on a subject with so many obvious possibilities for
exploitation might indicate a possible Russian official policy.
Members of the Panel had
various suggestions related to the planning of such an educational
program. It was felt strongly that psychologists familiar with mass
psychology should advise on the nature and extent of the program. In
this connection, Dr. Hadley Cantril (Princeton University) was
suggested. Cantril authored "Invasion from
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-20-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
Mars," (a study in the psychology of panic, written about
the famous Orson Welles radio broadcast in 1938) and has since performed
advanced laboratory studies in the field of perception. The names of
Don Marquis (University of Michigan) and Leo Roston were mentioned as
possibly suitable as consultant psychologists. Also, someone
familiar with mass communications techniques, perhaps an advertising
expert, would be helpful. Arthur Godfrey was mentioned as possibly a
valuable channel of communication reaching a mass audience of certain
levels. Dr. Berkner suggested the U. S. Navy (ONR) Special Devices
Center, Sands Point, L. I., as a potentially valuable organization to
assist in such an educational program. The teaching techniques used
by this agency for aircraft identification during the past war was cited
as an example of a similar educational task. The Jam Handy Co. which
made World War II training films (motion picture and slide strips) was
also suggested, as well as Walt Disney, Inc. animated cartoons. Dr.
Hynek suggested that the amateur astronomers in the U. S. might be a
potential source of enthusiastic talent "to spread the gospel." It
was believed that business clubs, high schools, colleges, and television
stations would all be pleased to cooperate in the showing of documentary
type motion pictures if prepared in an interesting manner. The use
of true cases showing first the "mystery" and then the "explanation" would be forceful.
To plan and execute such a
program, the Panel believed was no mean task. The current
investigatory group at ATIC would, of necessity, have to be closely
integrated for support with respect to not only the
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-21-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
historical cases but the current ones. Recent cases
are probably much more susceptible to explanation than older ones; first,
because of ATIC's experience and, secondly, their knowledge of most
plausible explanations. The Panel believed that some expansion of
the ATIC effort would certainly be required to support such a
program. It was believed inappropriate to state exactly how large a
Table of Organization would be required. Captain Ruppelt of ATIC
unofficially proposed, for purposes of analyzing and evaluating
reports:
a. An analysts' panel of four
officers
b. Four officer investigators
c. A briefing officer
d. An ADC liaison officer
e. A weather and balloon data
officer
f. An astronomical consultant
g. A group Leader, with
administrative assistant, file clerks and stenographers.
This proposal met with generally
favorable comment. The Panel believed that, with ATIC's support, the
educational pro gram of "training and debunking" outlined above might be
required for a minimum of one and one-half to two years. At the end
of this time, the dangers related to "flying saucers" should have been
greatly reduced if not eliminated. Cooperation from other military
services and agencies concerned (e.g., Federal Civil Defense
Administration) would be a necessity. In investigating significant
cases (such as the Trementon, Utah, sighting controlled experiments might
be required. An example
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-22-
|
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
would be the photographing of "pillow balloons" at different
distances under similar weather conditions at the site.
The help of one or two
psychologists and writers and a subcontractor to produce training films
would be necessary in addition. The Panel considered that ATIC's
efforts, temporarily expanded as necessary, could be most useful in
implementing any action taken as a result of its recommendations.
Experience and records in ATIC would be of value in both the public
educational and service training program envisaged.
Dr. Robertson at least was of the opinion that after public
gullibility lessened and the service organizations, such as ADC, had been
trained to sift out the more readily explained spurious sightings, there
would still be a role for a very modest-sized ATIC section to cope with
the residuum of items of possible scientific intelligence value.
This section should concentrate on energetically following up (perhaps on
the advice of qualified Air Force Scientific Advisory Board members) those
cases which seemed to indicate the evidence of unconventional enemy
artifacts. Reports of such artifacts would be expected to arise
mainly from Western outposts in far closer proximity to the Iron Curtain
than Lubbock, Texas!
UNOFFICIAL INVESTIGATING GROUPS
The Panel took cognizance of the
existence of such groups as the "Civilian Flying Saucer Investigators"
(Los Angeles) and the "Aerial Phenomena Research Organization
(Wisconsin). It was believed that such organizations should be
watched because of their potentially
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
-23-
|
[ S E C R E T ]
[Security Information]
great influence on mass thinking if widespread sightings
should occur. The apparent irresponsibility and the possible use of
such groups for subversive purposes should be kept in mind.
INCREASE IN NUMBER OF SIGHTINGS
The consensus of the Panel was, based upon the
history of the subject, that the number of sightings could be reasonably
expected to increase again this summer.
[BLACKED OUT-]
[---- BLACKED OUT ----]
-24-
|
|
[BLACKED OUT-]
[---- BLACKED OUT ----]
TAB A
REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC PANEL
ON JAN 17 1953
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
1. Pursuant to the request of the Assistant Director
for Scientific Intelligence, the undersigned Panel of Scientific
Consultants has met to evaluate any possible threat to national
security posed by Unidentified Flying Objects ("Flying Saucers"),
and to make recommendations thereon. The Panel has received the evidence
as presented by cognizant intelligence agencies, primarily the Air
Technical Intelligence Center, and has reviewed a selection of the best
documented incidents.
2. As a result of its considerations, the Panel concludes:
a. That the
evidence presented on Unidentified Flying Objects shows no indication that
these phenomena constitute a direct physical threat to national security.
We firmly believe that there is no residuum of cases which
indicates Phenomena which are attributable to foreign artifacts capable of
hostile acts, and that there is no evidence that the phenomena indicates a
need for the revision of current scientific concepts.
3. The Panel further concludes:
a. That the
continued emphasis on the reporting of these phenomena does, in these
parlous times, result in a threat to the orderly functioning of the
protective organs of the body politic.
We cite as examples the clogging of channels of
communication by irrelevant reports, the danger of being led by continued
false alarms to ignore real
[BLACKED OUT-]
|
|
[---- BLACKED OUT ----]
indications of hostile action, and the cultivation of a
morbid national psychology in which skillful hostile propaganda could
induce hysterical behavior and harmful distrust of duty constituted
authority.
4. In order most effectively to strengthen the
national facilities for the timely recognition and the appropriate
handling of true indications of hostile action, and to minimize the
concomitant dangers alluded to above, the Panel recommends:
a. That the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the
Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and
the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired;
b. That the national security agencies institute policies on intelligence,
training, and public education designed to prepare the material defenses
and the morale of the country to recognize most promptly and to react most
effectively to true indications of hostile intent or action.
We suggest that these aims may be achieved by an integrated
program designed to reassure the public of the total lack of evidence of
Inimical forces behind the phenomenon, to train personnel to recognize and
reject false indications quickly and effectively, and to strengthen
regular channels for the evaluation of and prompt reaction to true
indications of hostile measures.
|
|
/s/ Lloyd V. Berkner
Associated Universities, Inc. |
|
/s/ H.P. Robertson, Chairman
California Institute of Technology |
|
|
/s/ S. A. Goudsmit
Brookhaven National Laboratories |
|
/s/ Luis W. Alverez
University of California |
|
|
/s/ Thornton Page
Johns Hopkins University |
[BLACKED OUT]
|
|
[BLACKED OUT-] TAB B
[---- BLACKED OUT ----]
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ON
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
14 - 17 January 1953
EVIDENCE PRESENTED
- Seventy-five case histories of sightings 1951-1952 (selected by ATIC as those best documented).
- ATIC Status and Progress Reports of Project GRUDGE and Project BLUE BOOK (code names for ATIC study of subject).
- Progress Reports of Project STORK (code name for Battelle Memorial Institute contract work supporting ATIC).
- Summary Report of Sightings at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.
- Report of USAF Research Center, Cambridge, Mass., Investigation of "Green Fireball" Phenomena (Project TWINKLE).
- Outline of Investigation of U.F.O.'s Proposed by Kirtland Air Force Base (Project POUNCE).
- Motion Picture Films of sightings at Tremonton, Utah, 2 July 1952 and Great Falls, Montana, August 1950.
- Summary Report of 89 selected cases of sightings of various categories (Formations, Blinking Lights, Hovering, etc.).
- Draft of manual: "How to Make a FLYOBRPT," prepared at ATIC.
- Chart Showing Plot of Geographic Location of Unexplained Sightings in the United States during 1952.
- Chart Showing Balloon Launching Sites in the United States.
- Charts Showing Selected Actual Balloon Flight Paths and Relation to Reported Sightings.
- Charts Showing Frequency of Reports of Sightings, 1948 - 1952.
- Charts Showing Categories of Explanations of Sightings.
- Kodachrome Transparencies of Polyethylene Film Balloons in Bright Sunlight Showing High Reflectivity.
[BLACKED OUT-]
[---- BLACKED OUT ----]
|
|
[BLACKED OUT-] TAB B
[---- BLACKED OUT ----]
- Motion picture of seagulls in bright sunlight showing high reflectivity.
- Intelligence Reports Relating to U.S.S.R. Interest in U.S. Sightings.
- Samples of Official USAF Reporting Forms and Copies of Pertinent Air Force, Army and Navy Orders Relating to Subject.
- Sample Polyethylene "Pillow" Balloon (54 inches square).
- "Variations in Radar Coverage," JANP 101 (Manual illustrating unusual operating characteristics of Service radar).
- Miscellaneous official letters and foreign intelligence reports dealing with subject.
- Copies of popular published works dealing with subject (articles in periodicals, newspaper clippings and books).
[BLACKED OUT-]
[---- BLACKED OUT ----]
|
[--- BLACKED OUT ---] TAB C
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ON
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
14 - 17 January 1953
|
MEMBERS |
ORGANIZATION |
FIELD OF COMPETENCY
|
Dr. H.P. Robertson
(Chairman) |
California Institute of technology |
Physics, weapons systems |
| Dr. Luis W. Alverez |
University of California |
Physics, radar |
| Dr. Lloyd V. Berkner |
Associated Universities, Inc. |
Geophysics |
| Dr. Samuel Goudsmit |
Brookhaven National Laboratories |
Atomic structure, statistical problems |
| Dr. Thornton Page |
Office of Research Operations, Johns Hopkins University |
Astronomy, Astrophysics |
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
| Dr. J. Allen Hynek |
Ohio State University |
Astronomy |
| Mr. Frederick C. Durant |
Arthur D. Little, Inc. |
Rockets, guided missiles |
INTERVIEWEES
| Brig. Gen. William N. Garland |
Commanding General, ATIC |
Scientific and technical intelligence |
| Dr. H. Marshall Chadwell |
Assistant Director, O/SI, CIA |
Scientific and technical intelligence |
| Mr. Ralph L. Clark |
Deputy Assistant Director, O/SI, CIA |
Scientific and technical intelligence |
[ S E C R E T ]
[-Security Information-]
|
|
[BLACKED OUT-]
[---- BLACKED OUT ----]
TAB C
| INTERVIEWEES (con't) |
ORGANIZATION |
FIELD OF COMPETENCY
|
| Mr. Philip G. Strong |
Chief, Operations Staff, O/SI, CIA |
Scientific and technical intelligence |
| Mr. Stephen T. Possony |
Acting Chief, Special Studies Group, D/I USAF |
Scientific and technical intelligence |
| Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, USAF |
Chief, Aerial Phenomena Branch, ATIC, USAF |
Scientific and technical intelligence |
| Mr. Dewey J. Fournet, Jr. |
The Ethyl Corporation |
Aero Eng. |
| Lt. R. S. Neasham, USN |
USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory, Anacostia |
Photo Interpretation |
| Mr. Harry Woo, USN |
Photo Interpretation Laboratory, Anacostia |
Photo Interpretation |
[BLACKED OUT-]
[---- BLACKED OUT ----]
|
