History of the United States Air Force UFO Programs
Thomas Tulien
- In the Summer of 1947…
- The Public and the Press
- The United States Air Force Responds
- Project Sign
- Project Grudge
- Project Blue Book
- The CIA Robertson Panel
- A Turning Point in the Controversy
Endnote 1
Michael Swords, comp., Cases at the Beginning of the Modern UFO Era: Kenneth Arnold, June 24, 1947,” Historical Document Series, No. 1 (J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, Oct. 1992)
Kenneth Arnold and Raymond Palmer, The Coming of the Saucers (Amherst, WS: Legend Press, n.d.), 9-15.
Also, The 1947 Kenneth Arnold UFO Sighting
http://ufoevidence.org/cases/case511.htm.
Arnold provided a drawing for the Army Air Force, dated 12 July 1947. Available online from:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Arnold_AAF_drawing.jpg.
×
Endnote 6
See Bloecher’s updated chronological index of over 850 sighting reports for June and July 1947: http://nicap.org/waves/Wave47Rpt/SightingChronology.pdf
In the years following the publication of his report, Bloecher increased the number of reports for this period to over 1000.
×
Endnote 7
David M. Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975), pp. 38-39
Jan L. Aldrich, Project 1947: A Preliminary Report on the 1947 UFO Sighting Wave (UFO Research Coalition, 1997).
×
Endnote 14
Quoted from Herbert J. Strentz, A Survey of Press Coverage of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1947 - 1966. (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1970), pp.29-30.
×
Endnote 15
Fourth Air Force, Hamilton Field, CA investigated the 8 July 1947 UFO sightings at Muroc Army Air Field (later, Edwards AFB, and Air Force Flight Test Center), California. The witness affidavits are available online from: http://www.project1947.com/fig/muroc47.htm.
A few month’s later, on 14 October 1947, Air Force Capt. Chuck Yeager flew the Bell X-1 on the first manned supersonic flight at Muroc AAF.
×
Endnote 16
See Appendix 1 (pp. 57-61) in, Michael D. Swords, Project Sign and the Estimate of the Situation,” Journal of UFO Studies, n.s. 7, 2000: 27-64.
http://www.nicap.org/papers/swords_Sign_EOTS.htm
HTML version available from:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sign/sign.htm
Re: Item (b)—the silence from topside: “As July wore on into August, Garrett, Schulgen, and Reynolds became confused by a lack of interest and pressure emanating from the high echelons of the Pentagon. The previous year they had gone through an investigative furor about a subject that they considered to be similar to the flying discs, when hundreds of “ghost rocket” reports came out of Sweden and other European countries. In 1946, the top brass had exerted continuous pressure to find an answer, but now it had gone completely quiet. It was very peculiar to Garrett and the FBI. Their mutual suspicion was that the very highest officials knew what this phenomenon was already” (Swords, 2000, p. 31).
×
Endnote 23
Michael D. Swords, “Project Sign and the Estimate of the Situation,” p. 48-49.
http://www.nicap.org/papers/swords_Sign_EOTS.htm (845-846)
HTML version: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sign/sign.htm
Ruppelt was chief of Project Blue Book from 1951-1953. In 1956 he published a memoir of his experiences investigating UFOs for the USAF, titled, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. Only the last paragraph of the quote was included in Ruppelt’s book (p. 41). Mike Swords (CUFOS) is the conservator of the Ruppelt Files.
×
Endnote 31
Michael Swords, “UFOs, the Military, and the Early Cold War Era," in UFOs and Abductions: Challenging the Borders of Knowledge, ed. David M. Jacobs, (University Press of Kansas, 2000), 97-99.
×
Endnote 32
For examples see items: 112; 187; 202; 231; 235; 238; 290; 291; 292; 297; 298; 304; 325; 326 in Brad Sparks, comp., Comprehensive Catalog of 1,500 Project Blue Book UFO Unknowns: A Work in Progress, 2001-2003.
http://www.aliensthetruth.com/images/docs/BB_Unknowns_1_7.pdf
In addition, http://www.cufos.org/BB_Unknowns.html
Also, for a compilation of 42 UFO sighting reports covering a period from Sept. 1950-1954, by military personnel serving in Korea, see Richard F. Haines, Advanced Aerial Devices Reported During the Korean War (Los Altos, CA: LDA Press, 1990).
×
Endnote 33
Jerome Clark, The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon From The Beginning, Vol. 1 (Detroit: Omnigraphics Books, 1998), pp. 431-432.
×
Endnote 35
Swords, “UFOs, the Military, and the Early Cold War Era," in UFOs and Abductions, p. 103-104. Original quote from Ruppelt Files.
×
Endnote 36
Swords, “UFOs, the Military, and the Early Cold War Era,” in UFOs and Abductions, p. 105.
×
Endnote 41
Jerome Clark, The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning, Vol. 2 (Detroit: Omnigraphics Books, 1998), p. 999. Original quote from: Harry G. Barnes, “Washington Radar Observer Relates Watching Stunts by Flying Saucers,” New York World-Telegram (July 29, 1952).
http://www.nicap.org/articles/newsarticlesJuly1952.pdf (page 16)
×
Endnote 43
Clark, The UFO Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 1001. Albert Chop, the Pentagon’s Public Information Officer, was present in the radar room during Lt. Patterson’s encounter:
“Let's say I was apprehensive. Damn apprehensive and maybe a little frightened! Because I didn't know what was going to happen! And, I could see what was going on on the radarscope. So, everybody was silent, and we're just listening to Barnes vectoring the plane around the different areas. And then having Patterson say he saw these objects: ‘I see them, and I'm moving in for a better look.’ And then, ‘They're all around me. What shall I do?’ You know, what would you tell him?” Chop, Albert M., 1999
Interviewed by Thomas Tulien and Brad Sparks, November 5 (Sign Oral History Project) pp. 10-14; 45-46.
×
Endnote 47
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, pp. 169-1970.
http://www.nicap.org/rufo/contents.htm
Also of interest, original case documents for Project Blue Book case #1661, Washington National Sightings (July 1952); and a study by the Civil Aeronautics Administration in May 1953, titled, A Preliminary Study of Unidentified Targets Observed On Air Traffic Control Radars. This study was conducted on numerous targets observed 13-14 August on the Washington Microwave-Early-Warning (MEW) radar, supplemented by observations in November during initial test runs on the Indianapolis ASR-2 radar.
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/wash_nat/wash1952.htm#Zero
Also, James E. McDonald, “Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns” (presented to the American Meteorological Society, Nov. 1970). Available online from:
http://www.project1947.com/shg/articles/metfac70.html
×
Endnote 50
Swords, “UFOs, the Military, and the Early Cold War Era," in UFOs and Abductions, p. 109-111.
×
Endnote 51
Marshall Chadwell, memorandum for DCI, ""Unidentified Flying Objects," 2 December 1952.
Chadwell, memorandum for Amory, DDI, "Approval in Principle - External Research Project Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects," no date.
Haines, "CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90" Studies in Intelligence. (Early CIA Concerns, 1947-52)
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/ufo.html#top
×
Endnote 53
Somewhat ironically, in 1965 Arthur Godfrey disclosed on his nationwide television program an alarming UFO encounter he and co-pilot Frank Munciello experienced while piloting his private executive airplane. Donald Keyhoe, Aliens From Outer Space (1973) pp. 111-112.
Also: http://www.rense.com/ufo5/filers112699.htm
×
Endnote 54
Haines. "CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90" Studies in Intelligence.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/ufo.html#top (see Robertson Panel, 1952-53)
Endnote 55
Original quote (pp. 23-24)
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm
Also, “Within a month, the FBI was investigating Los Angeles’s Civilian Saucer Investigations, and Walter Riedel was being pressured to resign. Robertson shortly wrote to Marshall Chadwell: “That ought to fix the Forteans.” Swords, “UFOs, the Military, and the Early Cold War Era,” UFOs and Abductions, p. 115. Historical information on CSI-LA from:
http://www.project1947.com/shg/csi/index.html#csi2
×
Endnote 55
Jacobs, David M. The UFO Controversy in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975. p. 97.
×
Endnote 58
Jacobs, David M. The UFO Controversy in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975. pp. 142-144. For example, the 24 October 1968 Minot AFB case report concluded two probable (Ground-visual: Aircraft-B-52, and Astro-Sirius), and two possible explanations (Radar: Plasma, and Air-visual: Plasma). Multiple explanations were required to account for different aspects of the observations. The Blue Book Statistical Data for 1968 categorized the Minot AFB case as identified (Other), by Radar Analysis (as plasma). The Minot AFB targeting officer that analyzed the B-52 radarscope film for SAC/HQ concluded that the object was unidentified. See Quintanilla, “UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma,” (see p. 115 of PDF)
http://www.noufors.com/Documents/afdilemma.pdf
http://www.minotb52ufo.com/pdf/Quintanilla-afdilemma.pdf
The final chapter provides Blue Book statistical data based on UFO reports received for the years 1953-69.
×
Endnote 59
Swords, “UFOs, the Military, and the Early Cold War Era," in UFOs and Abductions, p. 117. Original quote from the Ruppelt Files.
×
Endnote 60
Donald E. Keyhoe, The Flying Saucers Are Real (New York: Fawcett Publications, 1950); Flying Saucers From Outer Space (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953); The Flying Saucer Conspiracy (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1955).
See also the Donald E. Keyhoe Archives:
http://www.hallrichard.com/keyhoe.htm
×
Endnote 61
Jacques and Janine Vallee, Challenge to Science: The UFO Enigma (Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Co., 1966), p. 46.
×
Endnote 64
J. Allen Hynek, The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry (Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Co., 1972) pp. 184-185. Original transcript of telephone calls received by Project Blue Book (roughly halfway down the page)
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc296.htm
×
Endnote 66
Vallees, Challenge to Science, p. 44; and Jerome Clark, “The Greatest Flap Yet?” Flying Saucer Review 12,1 (January/February 1966), p. 27. Also in Clark, The UFO Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 737.
×
Endnote 67
Vallees, Challenge to Science, pp. 44-45; Jerome Clark, “The Greatest Flap Yet?” Flying Saucer Review 12,1 (January/February 1966), p. 27
×
Endnote 68
Vallees, Challenge to Science, p. 45; Hynek, The UFO Experience, photo insert, Plate 2 (two photos and caption); Jacques Vallee, Forbidden Science: Journals 1957-1969 (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1992) p.146; and Clark, “The Greatest Flap Yet?” Flying Saucer Review 12,1, p. 27.
Also, of photographic interest see:
http://ufopics.blogspot.com/search/label/1965
×
Endnote 69
Strentz, “A Survey of Press Coverage of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1947 – 1966,” pp. 47-48. Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 737.
×
Endnote 70
Strentz, “A Survey of Press Coverage of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1947 – 1966,” p. 48. Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 737.
×
Endnote 71
Jacobs, David M. The UFO Controversy in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975. pp. 194-195.
Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 737.
×
Endnote 72
Strentz, “A Survey of Press Coverage of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1947 – 1966,” p.48.
×
Endnote 73
Strentz, “A Survey of Press Coverage of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1947 – 1966,” p.50.
×
Endnote 75
Ann Arbor (AP), 14 March 1966; and Ann Arbor (AP), 17 March 1966, in John C. Sherwood, Flying Saucers Are Watching You: The Incident at Dexter and the Incredible Michigan Flap (Clarksburg, WV: Saucerian Publications, 1967). Also, UFO Case Report, “The Michigan Sightings/’Swamp Gas’ Case,”
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case778.htm
×
Endnote 76
Detroit Free Press, 22 March 1966, in Sherwood, Flying Saucers Are Watching You; and Life Magazine, “Well Witnessed Invasion by Something: from Australia to Michigan,” 1 April 1966, pp. 24-31.
×
Endnote 77
Ann Arbor (AP), 21 March 1966, in Sherwood, Flying Saucers Are Watching You.
×
Endnote 80
Jacobs, David M. The UFO Controversy in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975. pp. 201-202; “Statement on Dexter and Hillsdale UFO Sightings by J. Allen Hynek, Scientific Consultant to Project Blue Book,” (Detroit Press Club, 25 March 1966).
http://xx12.com/Michigan%201966%20UFO.htm
×
Endnote 82
News release, Gerald R. Ford to George P. Millar, Chairman; Rep. L. Mendel Rivers, Chairman, Science and Astronautics Committee, Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 3/28/66; (Folder “UFO 1966,” Box D9) Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers, Gerald R. Ford Library.
http://www.presidentialufo.com/gerald-ford/89-gerald-ford-ufo-talk
×
Endnote 84
Jacobs, David M. The UFO Controversy in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975. pp. 198-199.
“Special Report of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board, Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project Blue Book,” March 1966.
http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/appndx-a.html
×
Endnote 88
Jacobs, David M. The UFO Controversy in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975. pp. 224.
×
Endnote 89
Michael D. Swords, “The University of Colorado UFO Project: The ‘Scientific Study of UFOs’” Journal of UFO Studies, n.s. 6, 1995/1996: pp. 157-161.
Quoted in Clark, The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon From The Beginning, Vol. 2, p. 949.
×
Endnote 90
Lt. Col. Robert Hippler, to Dr. Edward Condon, 16 January 1967.
http://www.nicap.org/docs/HipplerLetters.pdf
(includes Robert Low to Lt. Col. Robert Hippler, 27 January 1967; and news clipping of Condon’s 25 January lecture at Corning).
×
Endnote 93
Jacobs, David M. The UFO Controversy in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975. pp. 225-238.
David Saunders and R. Roger Harkins, UFOs? Yes! (New York: Signet, 1968).
Also, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science and Astronautics, Hearings, Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects, 90th Cong., 2d sess., 29 July 1968.
http://www.project1947.com/shg/symposium/index.html
×
Endnote 96
"A Sledgehammer for Nuts," Nature Volume 221 (March 8, 1969): 899-900.
×
History of the United States Air Force UFO Programs
Thomas Tulien
7. The CIA Robertson Panel
Responding to White House concerns, Director of Central Intelligence, General Walter Bedell Smith set about the task the following day. Deputy Director of Intelligence Robert Amory, Jr. assigned a study group to the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI), anchored by his chief science advisor, Assistant Director of Scientific Intelligence Dr. H. Marshall Chadwell. Armory asked the group to focus on the national security implications of UFOs, relaying DCI Smith's concerns, and the CIA’s reponsibility by statute to coordinate the intelligence effort required to solve the problem.49
In August and September, OSI consulted with some of the country’s most important scientists. Chadwell’s tentative conclusions addressed national security issues, recommending psychological-warfare studies and a national policy on how to present the issue to the public. He also acknowledged the air vulnerability issue, and the need for improved procedures for rapid identification of unknown air traffic—a vital concern of many at the time, since the U.S. had no early warning system against a surprise attack.
In October, Ruppelt and Blue Book provided a formal briefing, and by the end of November, OSI arrived at the conclusion that the phenomenon was neither American or Soviet.50 Chadwell briefed DCI Smith on 2 December, convinced “something was going on that must have immediate attention.”
Sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles.
He recommended an ad hoc committee be formed to “convince the responsible authorities in the community that immediate research and development on this subject must be undertaken,” with an expectation that this would lead to a National Security Council Intelligence Directive (NSCID) for a prioritized project to study UFOs, with research coordinated throughout the intelligence, and the defense, research and development community.
Two days later, at a meeting of the Intelligence Advisory Committee, it was agreed that the DCI should “enlist the services of selected scientists to review and appraise the available evidence in the light of pertinent scientific theories” and draft an NSCID on the subject. Director of Air Force Intelligence, Maj. Gen. John A. Samford offered full cooperation.51 Everyone expected a scientific advisory group that would recommend an ongoing systematic study in a search for truth. What they got was something quite different.
In January 1953, a prominent group of five scientists, headed by physicist and CIA consultant Howard P. Robertson, of the California Institute of Technology, convened “to evaluate any possible threat to national security posed by Unidentified Flying Objects and to make recommendations thereon.” After four days, in which 12 hours were spent reviewing Air Force data, the Robertson Panel drafted a classified report concluding:
- As a result of its considerations, the Panel concludes:
-
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.
- The Panel further concludes:
-
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 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 duly constituted authority.
- 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:
- 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;
- 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.52
The panel conclusions were strikingly similar to those of the 1949 Project Sign and Grudge reports, though more decidedly explicit. Both recommended that the investigation and study be reduced in scope, and the Air Force “eliminate or greatly reduce the mystery.” Grudge recommended that governmental agencies interested in psychological-warfare be informed, and that such agencies coordinate in and provide for public release of information to dispel “public apprehension.”
The panel concluded unanimously that there was no evidence of a direct threat to national security in the UFO sightings. It did find that continued emphasis on UFO reporting might threaten “the orderly functioning” of the government by clogging the channels of communication with irrelevant reports and by inducing “hysterical mass behavior” harmful to constituted authority. The panel also worried that potential enemies contemplating an attack on the United States might exploit the UFO phenomena and use them to disrupt U.S. air defenses.
A clearly defined approach to the problem was established. The panel recommended that the National Security Council debunk UFO reports and institute a policy of public education to reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind UFOs. It suggested using the mass media, mentioning Arthur Godfrey as potentially valuable in reaching “a mass audience of certain levels,” advertising, business clubs, schools, and even Walt Disney animated cartoons to get the message across.53
Reporting at the height of McCarthyism, the panel also recommended that such private UFO groups as the Civilian Saucer Investigators (CSI) in Los Angeles, and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization in Wisconsin be monitored for subversive activities.54
Based on the recommendations of the Robertson Panel the official policy on UFOs took another dramatic turn. The Air Force could now sidestep the substantive issues of the nature and origin of the objects, and concentrate on the public relations problems involved with eliminating UFO reports. Project Blue Book was effectively relieved of its primary investigative burden.55
In August 1953 the Air Force issued Air Force Regulation 200-2, which institutionalized secrecy at the air-base level providing control over the UFO reports it received, while also prohibiting the release of any information about a sighting to the public except when the sighting was positively identified.56
By December, in response to growing air defense concerns, the Joint Chiefs of Staff promulgated Joint-Army-Navy-Air Force-Publication (JANAP) 146, subtitled, Canadian-United States Communications Instructions for Vital Intelligence Sightings, which established protocol for relaying “information of vital importance…which in the opinion of the observer, requires very urgent defensive and/or investigative action.” The publication made releasing any information to the public about an unidentified flying object report a crime under the Espionage Act, punishable by a one-to-ten year prison term or a $10,000 fine “to emphasize the necessity for the handling of such information within official channels only.”57
Throughout the fifties, the Air Force continued to reorganize its UFO program implementing the Robertson Panel recommendations, and thereby minimizing—actually discouraging—public interest by reducing the number of unidentified reports. To further affect this, they devised a new classification system in which the identified category was broadly defined to include probable and possible explanations. The new system worked marvelously, and the number of unknowns fell precipitously. In press releases, and final Blue Book evaluation statistics, the probable and possible categories disappeared, listed simply as indentified. Publicly there were no degrees of doubt.58
Although Project Blue Book continued its work, it would never again be able to conduct a program of thorough investigations. From 1953 to 1969 Blue Book’s main thrust was public relations. In March 1954 Capt. Charles Hardin was appointed to head Project Blue Book. Ruppelt later wrote:
[Chuck Hardin] doesn’t have much to do. By his own admission, he has a good deal at ATIC and he is playing it for all it is worth. General Watson doesn’t like UFOs, so Hardin is keeping things just as quiet as possible and staying out from under everyone’s feet. In other words, being a regular Air Force, he is just doing as little as possible because he knows how controversial the subject is and his philosophy is that if you don’t do anything you won’t get hurt. He definitely doesn’t believe in UFOs, in fact he thinks that anyone who is even interested is crazy. They bore him.59
For the most part, the Air Force was successful in the public relations campaign, though they were not without detractors. Major Donald E. Keyhoe had been stirring doubts about the Air Force handling of UFO matters since 1950, and had gone on to write three best-selling books attacking the Air Force position concerning UFO secrecy.60 The Air Force refused to declassify its reports, and found itself in a dilemma. In refuting the secrecy charges the Air Force contradicted it’s claim that the sighting files were open, incurring criticism while appearing to be covering up as the critics charged. In 1957, to the dismay of the Air Force, Maj. Keyhoe took over as director of the Washington-based National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). With a growing nationwide network and a distinguished board of directors to back him, he began a lobbying effort for congressional hearings.
8. A Turning Point in the Controversy ››