◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0 The Sheffield Lake Case Early on the morning of Sept. 21, 1958, a domed, disc-shaped UFO was observed a few feet above the ground outside a house in Sheffield Lake, Ohio. The main witness was Mrs, William Fitzgerald. Other residents in the area reported UFO sightings that morning. After a superficial investigation, the Air Force reported a completely counter-to-fact explanation (also incorpor- ating the ‘‘shotgun’’ approach): Mrs. Fitzgerald had been fooled by a train headlight, plus a spotlight on a Coast Guard ship on Lake Erie. After a careful investigation, the Akron UFO Research Committee published a documented report, ‘The Fitzgerald Report” (P.O. Box 5242, Akron 13, Ohio), refuting the Air Force statements. Air Force: “The investigation revealed that a railroad track ran near the home of Mrs. Fitzgerald. Thenightof Mrs. Fitzgerald’s sighting, a train passed the house at approximately the same hour of the reported sighting. The train had a rotating headlight which, under some conditions, would produce unusual effects. Contact was also made with Chief Bosun’s Mate William Schott of the Coast Guard Station, Lorain, Ohio. Chief Schott reported that he was using his spotlight in an attempt to attract the attention of another ship, and that the light was directed toward the shore in the general direction of Mrs. Fitzgerald’s house. . .The weather at the time of the incident was a misty rain with haze and smoke. “The conclusion of the Air Force investigators was that the combination of moving lights, noise of the train and prevailing weather account for the illusion experienced by Mrs. Fitzgerald. The Air Technical Intelligence Center, after evaluating the evi- dence in this case, concurred with the conclusion of the investi- gators.” (Maj. Gen. W. P. Fisher, USAF, Director, Legislative Liaison, to Rep. A. D. Baumhart, Jr., 10-31-58). The Air Force logic is apparent: UFOs are not real objects and can all be explained in terms of honest but deluded witnesses. Mrs. Fitzgerald only thought she saw a distinct disc-shaped domed object. She must have been fooled by some local light. A bright train headlight, or Coast Guard spotlight shining through mist and haze could be the cause. Akron UFO Research Committee: Checking each point of the Air Force statements, the Akron group found many errors and omissions. Gen. Fisher had also told Congressman Baumhart that one of the confirmatory witnesses listed by Mrs. Fitzgerald had stated she had not seen anything unusual that night. Later, the witness signed a statement, repro- duced in the Akron report, that she had confirmed the sighting to Air Force investigators: A round object with a “hump” or dome. The investigators, she stated, then decided not to have her fill out a report form. * The railroad track is situated so that no train headlights ever shine into the window of Mrs. Fitzgerald’s house. Although urged to do so by the Akron group, the Air Force investigators made no attempt to check this. * At the time of the UFO sighting, Chief Schott’s ship was about 5-1/2 miles from Mrs. Fitagerald’s house. Lake Erie is not even visible from her house, being obscured bytrees and other houses. Through Ohio Congressmen, the Air Force was asked to explain these discrepancies. Various spokesmen for the Air Force reiterated their confidence in the ‘“‘competence” of their inves- tigators and that their findings were ‘“‘accurate and adequate.”” Maj. Lawrence J. Tacker, Pentagon UFO spokesman, in a letter to the Akron group, labelled their report “. . . the erroneous charges [of] amateur organizations.”’ He added, “Further, we are not interested in your theories or science fiction approach to this subject.” (1-14-59). When pressed by Congressman Baumhart for ‘‘a more complete report” on the incident, the Air Force was totally unresponsive. The Congressman was sent a form reply defending the Air Force position against the ‘mistaken beliefs’ of UFO groups which make ‘‘sensational claims and contentions.’’ The same form letter has been sent to Members of Congress repeatedly. Redmond, Oregon When a UFO sighting by Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) personnel on Sept. 24, 1959, at Redmond, Ore., airport [See Section V] was reported in the press, NICAP made a thorough investigation. Information was obtained fromthe FAA, the Weather Bureau and the IGY World Data Center at Cornell University. ‘A taped interview of the witnesses was obtained by members in the area. The essence of the report was that a round object had descended and hovered, moved quickly to anew position, then shot up into clouds emitting a flame trail as jet interceptors approached. The jets were scrambled because, according to FAA logs, an Air Force radar station was also tracking a UFO at the time. ‘When queried about the official explanation for this sighting, the Air Force replied: ‘The Portland Oregon UFO sighting of 24 September 1959 is carried on the records of ATIC as ‘insufficient information.’ The ATIC account of the sighting fails to reveal any evidence of radar tracking or any success of the attempted intercept. It is the ATIC opinion that this object was probably a palloon as evidenced by its relatively long period in the area (more than an hour), and the fact that, unless equipped with reflectors, balloons are not good radar reflectors. The average direction and strength of the wind at the time of the sighting was south at 15 knots [NICAP: The UFO reportedly moved south, where it showed on radar after the visual sighting had ended].”” (Maj. Lawrence J, Tacker, USAF, Public Information Division Office of Information, 1-19-60). NICAP obtained wind data from the U.S. Weather Bureau showing steady winds from the southeast throughout the morning, from 3-7 knots, until nearly five hours after the sighting. No balloon had been launched locally at the time of the sighting, and even if one had been, it almost certainly would have travelled on a northerly course. Later, the Air Force dropped the balloon ex- planation. ‘After NICAP publicity on the case drew Congressional attention, the Air.Force issued a much more detailed account (admitting that six jet interceptors had been scrambled, but denying that radar had tracked a UFO). Air Force letters to Members of Con- gress attributed the radar sighting to an error on the part of their Ground Control Intercept radar station. ‘twas determined by the four senior controllers on duty during the period of the search that this radar return on the ground station scope was a radar echo from a gap filler antenna located on a mountain at the 8010-foot level. This radar return did not move during the entire period of the search. [NICAP: The FAA logs state, ‘Altitude has been measured on height finder at altitudes that vary from 6000 to 54,000 feet.””].. . The fact that this radar return did not move is in complete disagreement with ground observers who sighted the UFO visually. They all testified it maneuvered rapidly and at times hovered.” (Col. Gordon B. Knight, Chief, Con- gressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liaison, to Senator Warren G, Magnuson, 4-27-60.) On March 25, 1960, the Pentagon UFO spokesman had written to NICAP that ‘‘, . . because of the information contained in the FAA logs, your correspondence and the copies of the logs have been forwarded to ATIC for possible additional consideration. . . Based upon all the present data on this sighting, the finding of ‘insufficient data’ is definitely valid.” As of Col. Knight’s April 27, 1960, letter to Senator Magnuson, the case still was classified as ‘insufficient data.”” ‘An Air Force information sheet circulated in 1963 attributes the UFO to ‘the refraction of light from the planet Venus.’’ (The sheet also accuses NICAP of ‘‘exploitation”’ of the FAA logs which contradicted the Air Force story), NICAP astronomy advisors had already checked this possibility, and knew Venus was prominent in the eastern sky that morning. The witnesses were queried on this specific point and stated they did not see Venus during the UFO sighting, but did see it and identify it afterwards. NICAP concedes that, if the radar target was perfectly stationary throughout, it was not the UFO observed visually. When trying to establish the balloon explanation, the Air Force emphasized the long period of observation (The FAA log indicates the visual sighting lasted about10 minutes.) When dissociating the radar sighting from the visual sighting, the Air Force emphasized the high maneuverability of the UFO. Finally, the UFO which ‘‘ma- neuvered rapidly and at times hovered’’ has been explained as the planet Venus. Approved For Release 2001/04/02 2GIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0