◆ SpookStack

“In resi ported in the vicinity of an Air Forcebase, information regarding a sighting may be released to the press or the general public by the commander of the Air Force base concerned only if it has been positively identified as a familiar or known object.” Follow-up queries about unexplained cases are to be referred to the Office of Information Services in the Pentagon (which seldom releases detailed information on a specific case unless it has been widely publicized), Paragraph 11 restricts Air Force personnel from publicly dis- cussing UFOs: ‘‘Air Force personnel, other than those of the Office of Information Services, will not contact private individuals on UFO cases nor will they discuss their operations and functions with unauthorized persons unless so directed, and then only on a ‘need-to-know’ basis.”” JANAP 146 is a Joint Chiefs of Staff directive: ‘(Communica- tions Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings (CIRVIS] From Airborne and Waterborne Sources.’’ In addition to military aircraft and surface vessels, the directive also applies to civil aircraft under certain conditions. Chapter Il, Section I, paragraph 201 includes, under information to be reported, (1) (c) ‘Unidentified flying objects.”” Section II, ‘Security: 210. Military and Civilian. a. All per- sons aware of the contents or existence of a CIRVIS report are governed by the Communications Act of 1934 and amendments thereto, and Espionage Laws. . . The unauthorized transmission or revelation of the contents of CIRVIS reports in any manner is prohibited.”” The effect of this directive, relative to UFOs, is to silence even commercial airline pilots cooperating with the intelligence network, once they have made a UFO report through official channels. It is, of course, also binding on all military personnel. 2. Regulations Concerning Release of Information There are only three classifications of military or national defense information authorized directly by law: Top Secret, Secret and Confidential. The types of information, and procedures of classification, are carefully spelled out. Legitimate security needs clearly necessitate withholding certain types of information from the general public. Theoretically, the public interest is protected by the limitations on the types of information which can be classified. In practice, military (and other) agencies have adopted other quasi-legal means of withholding additional information from the public for reasons of their own. ‘‘Executive privilege’? and the so-called ‘‘administrative classification’ is the gray area of secrecy, where no clear standards delimit the withholding of in- formation. The particular agency itself becomes both judge and jury in deciding what the public ought to know. Any business (the U.S. Government is the world’s largest business organization) may have justifiable reasons for with- holding certain types of information beyond those whichare clearly concerned with national defense, Personal information which if released might unfairly damage an individual’s reputation, for example, might be considered private information. Files of correspondence or personnel records, in most cases, could be considered private information (unless needed for the defense of an individual on trial or for other overriding considerations). However, there is a great potential for abuse of a system which, in effect, allows arbitrary withholding of government information from the public. To the maximum possible extent, government business should be public business. Clearly, the system is continually abused and ‘administrative classifications” are used to conceal facts which might embarrass an agency, or which might throw a spotlight on government activities that a sig- nificant segment of the public would oppose. The system continues to encroach on the public’s right to know what its government is up to. Worst of all, such pseudo-classifications as ‘‘For Official Use Only’ are rapidly being given status by default, largely unchallenged by Members of Congress or the press. Many Air Force regulations, for example, (using a free interpretation of Federal Law) authorize Air Force personnel to judge what infor- mation they may withhold ‘‘in the public interest.’ About this practice Clark Mollenhoff said, ‘“The broad right of arbitrarily roved irorRetease 2604/04/02: CIArRIDR81R00560RQQ04.0001 0004 -Oriciais should be permitted to arrogate to themselves.” [4] Air Force Regulation 11-30, ‘Administrative Practices; Cus- tody, Use and Preservation of DOD [Department of Defense] Official Information Which Requires Protection in the Public Interest.” The euphemistic phrase ‘‘in the public interest’’ is repeated in paragraph 1, which explains the ‘Reason for Issuing Regula- tion.” Among other things, the regulation is intended to ‘assure the proper. . . use of official information which in the public interest should not be given general circulation.” In spite of outlining some apparently worthy uses of this administrative classification, the regulation nevertheless does give blanket au- thority to withhold information whenever someone in the Air Force considers it to be ‘‘in the public interest.” It is difficult to imagine how the public benefits by this arrangement. Air Force Regulation 11-7, ‘Administrative Practices; Air Force Relations With Congress.” This regulation goes one step further than AFR 11-30, and claims the authority to withhold ‘For Official Use Only” infor- mation from Congress in some cases. After stating that most ‘For Official Use Only” information not given to the public is given to Congress, the regulation continues: “However, the considerations set forth [in AFR 11-30] which preclude making information available to the public may raise a question, in rare instances, as to whether the particular informa- tion requested may be furnished to Congress, even in confidence . .” This, it must be emphasized, refers to information whose release in no way endangers national security--or else it would be legally classified ‘Top Secret,” ‘‘Secret,’’ or “Confidential.” This indicates the extent to which the Air Force has taken upon itself the right to decide what the public--and even Congress-- should know. Chronological History of the Air Force UFO Project [One of the most informative sources regarding the conduct ot the UFO investigation is the book Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, (Doubleday, 1956), by Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, who headed the investigation from September 1951 to September 1953, Page references to this book are indicated after some of the following entries). Early Investigation July 1947; The Air Force began investigating UFO reports seriously after sightings by airline pilots, other qualified obser- vers. September 23, 1947; The Chief of Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) sent a letter to the Air Force Commanding General stating the conclusion of ATIC that UFOs were real, and urging the establishment of a permanent project to analyze future re- ports. (p. 31) January 22, 1948: Project “Sign” (popular name ‘‘Saucer’’) established at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, to investigate UFO reports. September 1948: Top Secret ‘Estimate of the Situation”, concluding UFOs were interplanetary, sent from ATIC to Air Force Chief of Staff, General Hoyt S. Vandenberg. (Report was kicked back for additional proof; later declassified and burned). (ppg. 62-63, 67) February 11, 1949: Project name changed to “Grudge.” Because of internal disagreement about the significance of UFOs, reports were then ‘evaluated on the premise that UFOs couldn’t exist.” (ppg. 85-88) April 27, 1949: Project Saucer report released: About 30% of the sightings investigated to date were said to be explained as conventional objects. An equal number, the report said, probably would be explainable after further probing. December 27, 1949: ProjectGrudge report released: Explained away all reports to date as delusions, hysteria, hoaxes and crack- pot reports. Announcement that project had disbanded. Phase Two 1950-51; This period has been called the “Dark Ages” of UFO investigation. Following the Project Grudge report, the project was not disbanded. However, those whobelieved in a more positive Approved For Release 2001/04/02 :*GIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0