◆ SpookStack

“The urFOAppreved mor Release 2001/04/02, : CIAsRDP81R005RORO00100010001 -0 is intimately associated with the air defense role of the United States, As such, the first thing to be determined is the threat potential of an unidenti- fied flying object. When this determination has been made (none of the over 7,000 sight- ings have proven inimical or hostile) an understandably lower priority is placed on the further evaluation of the sight- ing. I’m sure you will agree that the security of the nation is and must be our primary concern.”’ (G, Wise, for Maj. William T. Coleman, Jr., USAF, UFO Project Officer, Public In- formation Division, to Fred gation of a phenomenon. Yet, as the agency officially charged with investigation of UFOs, the Air Force is under pressure to do just that. Intelligence tech- niques are not sufficient for scientific investigation. The full resources of the scientific community, including tracking instrumentation specifically for that purpose, wouldbe required. Once satisfied that a given UFO poses no threat, the Air Force investigators apparently search for the most plausible conven- tional explanation. When none can be found, the ‘‘shotgun’’ approach is used. Clearly, this is not a scientific investigation. Kempf, 8-17-61). D. Sample UFO Cases Involving Aspects of Secrecy Red Bluff, California The sighting of a UFO Aug. 13, 1960, by California Highway Patrolmen (Section VII] described a highly maneuverable, ellip- tical object. Toward the end of the observation, a second similar object was observed. In a letter to a NICAP member, the Air Force stated: ‘‘The findings [are] that the individuals concerned witnesseda refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betel- geux. . . [temperature inversions] contributed to the phenomena as the planet Mars was quite low in the skies and the inversion caused it to be projected upwards,’’ (9-16-60). In a letter to NICAP, the Air Force stated: ‘It is an impos- sible task to determine what the exact light source was for each Specific incident, but the planet Mars and the star Capella were the most probable answers for these sightings.’? (10-6-60). The change of identification occurred about the time NICAP re- ported, in a special bulletin for October, 1960, that the first three named astronomical objects all were below the horizon at the time of the sighting. As it happens, the star Capella is the only one named which was above the horizon at the time of the sighting. NICAP recently telephoned the office of a California Senator and confirmed that the state is on Daylight Saving Time (P.D.T.) from April 26 to October 25. The sighting began at 11:50 p.m. (P.D.T.), Aug. 13. At that time, the planet Mars was about one hour (i.e., about 15 degrees) below the eastern horizon. It is completely absurd to suppose that it could in any way account for the sighting. Aldebaran did not rise until about 1 a.m., Betelgeux about 3 a.m. As for Capella, which was barely above the horizon when the sighting began, no star, by the wildest stretch of imagination, could give the appearance of a large ellipse a few hundred feet off the ground, nor could it maneuver as described by the police officers. [See Section VII] Also, the objects disappeared below the eastern horizon at the end of the sighting, whereas Capella would have risen about 35 degrees in that period. The Air Force explanation of this case is one of the most strained and counter- to-fact on record. UTAH FILM In 1963, the Air Force circulated an information sheet labelled “Ode D ‘Classic’ -- Seagulls’? (See photostat) suggesting that there was a ‘‘strong possibility’’ that the UFOs filmed by Delbert C. Newhouse on July 2, 1952, were seagulls. By the end of the statement, after baldly assuming that actual seagulls ‘‘undoubted- ly’? showed up in some of the frames, the conclusion was stated more positively: There is ‘‘little reasonable doubt’’ that the UFOs actually were seagulls The author refers to the ‘‘unani- As a matter of fact, there is virtually no support for this iden- tification. Mr. Newhouse, a Navy chief photographer (aviation), viewed the UFOs at relatively close range at first. They were shiny, perfectly disc-shaped objects. By the time he was able to unpack his camera, the objects had receded into the distance, but he was still able to capture them on film. When the new Air Force information sheet was issued, NICAP forwarded a copy to Board Member Dewey J. Fournet, Jr. Mr. Fournet is a former Air Force Major who monitored the UFO program for the Pentagon. While on active duty with the Air Force, he handled the Utah movie film, helped arrange for its analysis, was conversant with the analyses conducted and their results. The following are excerpts from his reply to NICAP: “This [document] was apparently written by someone only very superficially acquainted with the Tremonton movie case -- some- one who obviously didn’t bother to study the case history in any detail, or by someone who is purposely distorting the facts of the case. ... ‘‘There were two different analyses made of the movies shortly after I received them in 1952, both by the most qualified military photoanalytical labs then in existence. One was by the Wright- Patterson AFB photo lab and the other by the Navy photo lab at Anacostia. ... The W-P lab concluded that the objects were not airplanes or balloons and probably not birds. The Navy lab concluded that they were not any of these. In neither case was there anything even remotely hinting that birds of any type had been identified in any frames of the movie. . . . “The ‘unanimity of opinion’ to which the author of ‘‘Ode D’”’ refers must certainly be a recent development. There most certainly was no such unanimity among the original parties in this case that the objects were probably seagulls. Quite to the con- trary, the majority concluded that they were probably not birds, although some of us conceded this possibility if certain corol- lary assumptions were made: [That the witness was lying or unreliable; that despite his photographic experience, the witness panned his camera opposite to the direction the lone object was flying. ] “The ‘Ode D’ author apparently is unaware of or intentionally omitted reference to Newhouse’s statement. . . he described [the UFOs] as ‘two pie pans, one inverted on top of the other.’ .... “Overall, whether the USAF author realized it or not, it would be necessary to conclude that Newhouse was lying in many of his statements in order to conclude that the Tremonton objects were birds. IfI recall correctly, the unanimous opinion of the intelli- gence officers was that he was completely sincere and somewhat reserved. I have never heard anyone claim anything to the con- trary. ...’’ ODE D"CLASSIC" - (FROM COLORED MOTION PICTURE FILM) TREMONTON, UTAH INCIDENT 2 July 1952 At approximately 1110 on 2 July 1952 while driving in the vicinity of Tremonton, Utah, Chief Petty Officer Delbert C. Newhouse's wife noticed @ group of objects in the sky that she could not identify. She asked him to stop the car and look. There was a group of about ten or twelve objects that bore no relation to anything he had seen before milling about in a rough formation and proceeding in a westerly direction. He opened the luggage compartment of his car and got his camera out of a suitcase. Loading it hurriedly, he exposed approximately thirty feet of film. There was no reference point in the sky, and it was impossible for him to make any estimate of speed, size, altitude or distance. Toward the end one of tle objects reversed course and proceeded away from the main group. He held the camera still and allowed this single one to cross the field of view, picking it up again and repeating for three or four such passes. By this time all of the objects had disappeared, He stated that he expended the balance of the film ldte that afternoon on @ mountain somewhere in Idaho. The original film was analyzed by a photo reconnaissance laboratory shortly after the sighting. The conclusion reached was that a strong possibility existed that the bright spots of light appearing on the film were caused by seaguils soaring in thermal air currents, The credibility of the conclusion was undoubtedly supported by the Presence of identifiable seagulls in some of the frames, This conclusion was further strengthened dy movies of seagulls, taken at various distances, which showed them as bright spots of light similar to those in the Newhouse film. A recent analysis (1956) of the Newhouse film, made by USAF photo specialists totally unaware of the nature or previous history of this case, yielded the opinion that the bright spots of light on the film were bird reflections on the strong sunlight. The unanimity of opinion present in all evaluations made in this case leaves little reasonable doubt that the UFO's in the Newhouse films were, indeed, seagulls. Approved For Release 2001/04/02 ::.¢IA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0