Post by Andrei Tchentchik on Apr 25, 2020 9:51:43 GMT 2
(.#432).- Documents UFOs of the C.I.A for December 1952, uncensored.
Sample of documents related to UFOs of the C.I.A for 1952, uncensored.
SECURITY INFORMATION
DEC 2, 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR : Director of Central Intelligence
THRU: Deputy Director for Intelligence
SUBJECT : Unidentified Flying Objects
1. On 20 August, the DCI, after a briefing by OSI on the above subject, directed the preparation of an NSCID for submission to the Council stating the need for investigation and directing agencies concerned to cooperate in such investigations.
2. In attempting to draft such a directive and the supporting staff studies, it became apparent to DD/I, acting AD/SI and AD/IC that the problem was largely a research and development problem, and it was decided by DD/I at attempt to initiate action through R&DB. A conference was held between DI/USAF, Chairman of the R&DB, DD/I, Acting AD/SI and AD/IC at which time it was decided that Dr. Whitman, Chairman of R&DB, would investigate the possibility of undertaking research and development studies through Air Force agencies.
3. On approximately 6 November, we were advised by Chairman R&DB, that inquiries in the Air Staff did not disclose "undue concern" over this matter, but that it had been referred to the Air Defense Command for consideration. No further word has been received from R&DB.
4. Recent reports reaching CIA indicated that further action was desirable and another briefing by the cognizant A-2 and ATIC personnel was held on 25 November. At this time, the reports of incidents convince us that there is something going on that must have immediate attention. The details of some of these incidents have been discussed by AD/SI with DDCI. 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.
5. OSI is proceeding to the establishment of a consulting group of sufficient competence and stature to review this matter and convince the responsible authorities in the community that immediate research and development on this subject must be undertaken. This can be done expeditiously under the aegis of CENIS.
6. Attached hereto is a draft memorandum to the NSC and a simple draft NSC Directive establishing this matter as a priority project throughout the intelligence and defense research and development community.
H.M. Chadwell
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence
Attachments:
Draft memo to NSC with draft Directive
Distribution:
Orig. 1 - forward
1 - DD/I
1 - AD/SI
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
ER - 3 - 2808
MEMORANDUM TO : The Executive Secretary National Security Council
SUBJECT: Unidentified Flying Objects (Flying Saucers)
1. The Central Intelligence Agency has reviewed the current situation concerning unidentified flying objects which have caused extensive speculation in the press and have been the subject of concern to Government organizations. The Air Force, within the limitations of manpower which could be devoted to the subject, has thus far carried the full responsibility for investigating and analyzing individual reports of sightings. Since 1947, approximately 2000 official reports of sightings have been received and, of these, about 20% are as yet unexplained.
2. It is my view that this situation has possible implications for our national security which transcend the interests of a single service. A broader, coordinated effort should be initiated to develop a firm scientific understanding of the several phenomena which apparently are involved in these reports, and to assure ourselves that the incidents will not hamper our efforts in the Cold War or confuse our early warning system in case of an attack.
3. I therefore recommend that this Agency and the agencies of the Department of Defense be directed to formulate and carry out a program of intelligence and research activities required to solve the problem of instant positive identification of unidentified flying objects. A draft of an appropriate directive is attached.
Walter B. Smith
Director
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
D R A F T
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
SUBJECT: Unidentified flying objects
Pursuant to the provisions of section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947 and for the purposes annunciated in Paragraphs d and e thereof, the National Security Council hereby authorizes and directs that :
1. The Director of Central Intelligence shall formulate and carry out a program of intelligence and research activities as required to solve the problem of instant positive identification of unidentified flying objects.
2. Upon call of the Director of Central Intelligence, Government departments and agencies shall provide assistance in this program of intelligence and research to the extent of their capacity provided, however, that the DCI shall avoid duplication of activities presently directed toward the solution of this problem.
3. This effort shall be coordinated with the military services and the Research and Development Board of the Department of Defense, with the Psychological Board and other Governmental agencies as appropriate.
4. The Director of Central Intelligence shall disseminate information concerning the program of intelligence and research activities in this field to the various departments and agencies which have authorized interest therein.
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
3 December 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Flying Saucers
1. At 1100 yesterday morning I met with Dr. Julius A. Stratton, Executive Vice President and Provost of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. Max Millikan, Director of CENIS. I briefed them on the various new reports of sightings including the Limestone Base Case, The Florida Scout Master, the Utah Motion Pictures, etc. I also brought Dr. Stratton up to date on developments which had occurred since our previous discussion of the subject in August. Dr. Stratton reiterated his earlier position that this is a subject which must be investigated and he said that probably the best means of getting a thoroughly competent review of the problem would be through Project LINCOLN. He said, however, that in view of the delicate position in relation to Air Force, as a result of the "Summer Study Report", any acceptance of this project by LINCOLN must be based on Air Force concurrence or on an independent proposal from one of the other services. He said that Alfred Hill would be the best man to head the group. Assuming that it might prove impractical to place the Project at LINCOLN, we explored other possibilities including Princeton and Cal Tech. Dr. Stratton felt very strongly that Cal Tech would be the better of the two in view of the presence there of Robertson, Lauritson, Spitzer (on temporary duty from Princeton), Millikan's brother and others. Dr. Stratton asked particularly that we keep him informed of the progress that we make in having this problem investigated as he is personally very interested as well as fully aware of the potential danger and implications of the situation.
2. Following the meeting with Drs. Stratton and Millikan, I had lunch at the Faculty Club with Lloyd Berkner and Jerrold Zacharias and briefed them on the recent cases and our feelings regarding their implications. Berkner, while apparently interested in taking a personal part, felt strongly that the saucer problem should be thoroughly investigated from a scientific point of view. Zacharias did not appear to be greatly interested in the problem and made only one suggestion, i.e. that Shirley Quimby of Columbia University be brought into the picture. Quimby took his physics degree at the same time as Zacharias; is now at Columbia University, having during the war been a Navy scientist working on ASW. Zacharias suggested Quimby because the latter is probably the most expert man in the country on magic and general chicanery.
3. My conclusion from these conversations is that it will probably be necessary to secure the full backing of DCI in order that a scientific review of this problem may be laid on. Without this backing, it would probably be impossible to secure the Air Force cooperation which would be necessary, particularly in the matter of the availability of reports, etc.,
P.G. Strong Orig - Subject
OSI:PGS:bxd P. G. STRONG 1 - Chrono
1 – Daily
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
4 December 1952
Security Information
IAC-M-90
4 December 1952
INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting Held in Director's
Conference Room, Administration Building
Central Intelligence Agency, on 4 December 1952
Acting Deputy Director (Intelligence)
Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Robert Amory, Jr.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Mr. W. Park Armstrong, Jr., Special Assistant, Intelligence Department of State.
Brigadier General John M. Willems, acting for Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the
Army.
Rear Admiral Carl F. Espe, Director of Naval Intelligence, Department of the Navy.
Major General John M. Samford, Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, United States Air Force.
Mr. Walter F. Colby, Director of Intelligence, Atomic Energy Commission.
Brigadier General Edward H. Porter, Deputy Director for Intelligence, The Joint Staff.
Mr. Meffert W. Kuhrtz, acting for the Assistant to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
ALSO PRESENT
Dr. Sherman Kent, Central Intelligence Agency.
Dr. H. Marshall Chadwell, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Paul Borel, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Ludwell L. Montague, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Philip Strong, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Joseph W. Smith, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. William C. Trueheart, Department of State.
Mr. Myron Burgin, Department of State.
Lieutenant Colonel T. C. Anderson, Department of the Army.
Lieutenant Colonel Edgar H. Thompson, Jr., Department of the Army.
Colonel John J. Morrow, United States Air Force.
Colonel Jack E. Thomas, United States Air Force.
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Grant, United States Air Force.
Colonel S. M. Lansing, The Joint Staff.
Captain John A. Holbrook, USN, The Joint Staff.
Richard D. Drain
Acting Secretary
DECLASSIFIED PER SEC 3(A), EO11652
APPROVED FOR RELEASE 007789 IAC-M-90
DATE 6 October 1978 4 December 1952
Approval of Minutes
1. Action: The minutes of the last meeting, 1 December 1952 (IAC-M-89), were approved.
Conditions and Trends in Latin
America Affecting U. S. Security
(NIE-70)
2. Action: Approved with minor modifications.
Unidentified Flying Objects
3. Action: 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.
b. Draft and circulate to the IAC a proposed NSCID, which would signify the IAC concern
in the subject and authorize coordination with appropriate non-IAC departments and
agencies.
4. Discussion: The Acting Chairman, Mr. Amory, presented to the committee the DCI's request that this subject be informally discussed. Dr. Chadwell briefly reviewed the evidence and peripheral considerations, and noted that most of the available evidence is processed by ATIC. General Samford offered his full cooperation. It was recognized that the problem is best approached if directly related to specific problems of intelligence and defense. It was thought desirable that the action noted above under "a" be undertaken immediately, with consideration of a proposed NSCID to depend in some measure on the results achieved by the scientists' studies.
Security Information
IAC-M-90
4 December 1952
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
STANDARD FORM NO. 64
Office Memorandum - UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
TO: DAD/SI DATE: 9 December 1952
FROM : H. U. Graham
SUBJECT: FCC Monitoring and Flying Saucers
1. In accordance with your request, I interviewed Mr. Irving Weston of the Field Engineering and Monitoring Division of the FCC to determine whether the Commission at present has any knowledge of unexplained radio signals which might possibly be connected with unidentified flying saucers.
2. Unless such signals were reasonably persistent or were causing interference to established services, it is unlikely that they would be intercepted,
or if intercepted, the subject of inquiry. This is because the stations are, in general, involved in special assignments and have a minimum of time for general cruising of the spectrum.
3. The Commission has operating 12 full time monitoring stations and 6 part time monitoring stations. Two (2) of the stations are in Alaska and one (1) in Hawaii. Because of the short range of frequencies above 30 mc/s., monitoring between 30 and about 200 mc/s. is confined pretty much to transmitters in the immediate vicinity. Most of the monitoring stations have equipment for higher frequencies, including the AH/APR-4 receiver, but make little use thereof. VHF monitoring is done to some extent by traveling inspectors with automobile receivers. It seemed likely using the example of the concerted effort to identify the first diathermy signals back in 1935 and the more recent efforts which preceded the explanation of the VHF "bursts", that any persistent occurrences of radio signals that might come from flying saucers, if below 30 mc/s., would soon be the object of considerable interest at the FCC and elsewhere.
4. The FCC maintains a file in the Briggs Building of all reported intercepts of all its monitoring stations by frequency and by call letters extending back three or four years. this file is particularly valuable in the recognition of new signals which may be reported. Information tabulated includes frequency, call letters, type of emission, service, monitoring station reporting, and an intercept supporting the identification.
5. Classification of the discussion was considered Secret.
HU Graham
H. U. GRAHAM
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
9 December 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Unidentified Flying Objects
1. At 10:15 hours today I talked by telephone with Captain Edward J. Ruppelt (Chief, Aerial Phenomena Branch, Analysis Division, ATIC). The purpose of the call was to determine if Captain Ruppelt would be in Washington during the next few days so that he might meet with Dr. Robertson. Also, if there had been any developments in the Limestone-Presque Isle case.
2. Captain Ruppelt stated that he had put in a request to come to Washington last week but that he had been "running into a snag" in getting away and he intimated that his intention to specifically visit CIA may have been the difficulty. By oblique references it was determined that Colonel Donald L. Bower (chief, Analysis Division) was blocking his trip. Note: If this is true, it is difficult to understand since Colonel Bower, in discussions with E. Tauss and myself on 25 November, indicated complete willingness for cooperation. Ruppelt stated that he would try again and hoped to be in Washington next week. I gave no indication of the agreements reached on this subject in the IAC meeting on 4 December.
3. Regarding the Limestone-Presque Isle case, Captain Ruppelt reported that the observation is suspected of being the planet Saturn. A sighting of Saturn with the same theodolite will be made within the next few days. An examination of this data with possible theodolite reading errors should indicate whether the sighting could conceivably have been of this planet. I find it difficult to believe that the moons of Saturn could bee seen visibly.
4. Captain Ruppelt stated that he had a package of analyses and reports which he desired to have O/SI study and was planning to hand-carry to Washington. I mentioned that someone from O/SI might be making a trip to ATIC within the next week or so. Ruppelt stated that he would be pleased to hear from me at any time. His office telephone number is Dayton, Ohio, Kenmore 7111, Extension 65365 and his home telephone number is Walnut 7113.
F C Durant
F. C. Durant
OSI/FCDurant:bm
Distribution:
Orig - Subject file
1 - Daily reading file
1 - Chrono file
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
10 December 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR : The Director of Central Intelligence
THROUGH : Deputy Director (Intelligence)
SUBJECT : Unidentified Flying Objects
REFERENCE : Request of the Director of 10 December 1952
1. The following is a summary of the current situation with respect to the investigation of unidentified flying objects. Recent incidents include:
a. Movies of ten (10) unidentified flying objects (unexplained on the basis of natural
phenomena or known types of aircraft), near Tremonton, Utah, on 2 July 1952.
b. A very brilliant unidentified light over the coast of Maine for about four hours on the night of 10-11 October at a height computed to be two or three times that which can be
sustained by any known device.
c. Alleged contact with a device on the ground in Florida late this summer which left some
presently unexplained after-effects.
d. Numerous other sightings of lights or objects which either in configuration or performance do not resemble any known aerial vehicle or explainable natural phenomena.
2. In furtherance of IAC action of 4 December, O/SI has been working with Dr. H. P. Robertson, consultant, toward establishing a panel of top scientists and engineers in the fields of astrophysics, nuclear energy, electronics, etc. to review this situation. Wholehearted cooperation has been secured by DI/USAF and ATIC, and a visit by AD/SI, Dr. Robertson, and Mr. Durant of SI to ATIC is planned for Friday. It is hoped to organize the panel and undertake substantive scientific review of this subject within the next two to three weeks.
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director
Distribution: Scientific Intelligence
DD/I - 1
Opns/SI – 1
Prod/SI - 1
AD/SI – 2
OSI:RLC/mtw (10Dec52)
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
12 December 1952
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
OPERATIONS RESEARCH OFFICE
6410 Connecticut Avenue
Chevy Chase, Maryland
OPERATING UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TELEPHONE: Oliver 4200
12 December 1952
Dr. H. P. Robertson
Cosmos Club
2121 Massachusetts Ave., N. W.
Washington, D. C.
Dear H. P.:
Here is that article you mentioned from the New Yorker, which I found most interesting and informative. I have listed below a few items which seemed to me to need further discussion:
Patrol Cameras
Fred Whipple at Harvard has had considerable experience in developing and using small, equatorially mounted cameras. These are exposed for several hours through a rotating sector, and show meteor trail as a series of dashes an a background of stars, this providing the meteor angular velocity. In many cases two such cameras are used, separated by several miles, so that the space track of the meteor can be derived.
As I recall, meteor patrol cameras have been used in the vicinity of Boston and southern New Mexico only. All the photographs are preserved, and I am sure there have been no unidentified objects of any type to date. A possible modification of this technique which would provide more complete coverage is to use the Greenstein-Henyey wide-angle camera, which photographs 160 deg. of the sky at once. Such a camera is in use at Yerkes Observatory and is reported most recently in a paper by Sharpless and Osterbrook in the Astrophysical Journal, 1951. The major difficulty of operation would be changing the film, which might be made automatic.
Another use of cameras could be on selected ground radar scopes. Possibly such a camera should be kept in stand-by status and triggered by the operator when unidentified objects are on the screen.
The issue of light, hand-held cameras to aircraft pilots is another fair possibility noted in the New Yorker article.
Study of Communications Systems
One of our ORO projects is undertaking such a study, and has collected a large amount of literature. The British Army Operational Research Group has made several studies of air raid reporting systems as used in exercises, which show the distortion and "noise" introduced in any reporting system. There is a possibility of obtaining comparable data on such false alarms to fire departments and "flaps" in several military situations (such as North Africa in 1942). I have been intrigued with the electronic analogue of a communications system with feedback. The circumstances leading to instability of such a system might be measured if a simple theory can be postulated; e.g., if something analogous to impedance of the circuit determines instability.
Dr. Robertson, 12 December 1952
Mass Psychology
It is clear that a simple statement has not and will not convince the public. A psychologist may have some theoretical framework in which past "flaps" of this kind can be analyzed and the results extended to the present difficulty.
General Requirement
It seems to me that the major difficulty as present is the lack of a well-defined attitude among responsible officials: either there is or there is not convincing evidence of significant phenomena. To resolve this question it must be decided in advance what level of completeness is necessary in explaining reports, and what indications of hostile intent are necessary to make the reported objects of importance. It might help to point out the difference between open-mindedness and indecision, and to suggest some level of credulity below which reports will not even be considered.
Dr. Aden B. Meinel who is an assistant professor of astrophysics at the Yerkes Observatory, who has been concerned with the photography of aurora and who has designed complex wide-angle cameras for the Air Force under a contract with Boston University, might be helpful in discussion of cameras noted above and of auroral phenomena. However, the Air Force authorities here have no record of his clearance. If you are interested in him, we could ask him by telephone what is clearance is and with what organization.
Yours sincerely,
Thornton
Thornton Page
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
DEC 18 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR : The Director of Central Intelligence
THROUGH : Deputy Director
SUBJECT : Unidentified Flying Objects
REFERENCE : (a) Request of the Director of 10 December 1952.
(b) Memo from AD/SI to Director dated 10 December 1952.
1. Pursuant to the request of the Director, the following amplification of Reference (b) and review of the current situation is submitted. A preliminary review of the USAF investigation of this subject has been completed. With respect to the recent incidents enumerated in reference (b), additional information has been obtained which is appended as Tab A.
2. A trip to the Air Technical Intelligence Center was made on Friday, 12 December by AD/SI, Dr. H. P. Robertson (consultant), and Mr. F. C. Durant (operations Staff/SI). During this visit the O/SI group was briefed on the current status of he investigation, and copies of selected case studies and progress reports were obtained. This material has been subsequently studied in detail.
3. There still exists no reasonable evidence that the objects sighted are of foreign origin. While there is no indication that these objects represent a direct threat to the national defense, there are certain potential dangers which are related to these sightings. As a result of the trip and these conclusions. O/SI is proceeding with plans to convene a group (probably not more than three), of top level consultants in the fields of physics (radar and upper atmosphere), astrophysics and astronomy, to review the evidence and recommend with respect to:
a. Methodology of investigation of unidentified flying objects.
b. Instrumentation to obtain data in future sightings.
c. Methods of rapid identification of unidentified flying objects.
d. Desirability for convening of a larger panel.
We are deferring for the present the convening of a large panel of diverse scientific interests for a detailed review of the substantive aspects of the problem because of insufficient and incomplete data.
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence
Enclosure - Tab A
Distribution:
Director - orig & 1
DD/I - 1
P&E/SI - 1
W&E/SI - 1
Opns/SI - 1
AD/SI - 2
OSI:RLC:FCD/mtr
(18 Dec 52)
1. Motion Pictures, Tremonton, Utah
This case involves the sighting and photographing (Kodachrome film) of ten bright lights moving across the sky on 2 July 1952 in rough formation. Source is a Chief Photographer's Mate, USN, with 17 years photographic experience. The local time was 1110; weather conditions bright, clear, no clouds. Objects appeared to be 'milling about' while traveling in a westerly direction across the sky. Source was driving along the road when the sighting occurred. He stopped the car and photographed the event with his personal camera. Toward the end of the sighting, one object separated from the rest and reversed course across the sky.
Status: ATIC Photographic Laboratory examination of the film resulted in following conclusions:
a. 10 objects, all alike in movement and size.
b. Decidedly improbable that they are birds or balloons.
c. Exact nature cannot be determined, because they are visible only as small spots
of light. It can be deduced, however, that they are either non-spherical in shape and similar to bright metal in reflectance or else variably self-luminous. Objects which follow similar courses show similar brightness fluctuations which could be caused by their taking similar flight attitudes.
d. Apparently a coordination of movement to some extent among these objects.
They seem to move in formations which are probably 3-dimensional in arrangement.
e. The movements suggest flight paths consisting of skew curves in space.
f. The single object which reversed course remained reasonably uniform in
brightness. It followed a nearly straight line path with reasonable uniformity of motion at an angular velocity of about 2.1 deg./sec. (This is the equivalent to the following speeds: 37 mph @ 500 yards; 75 mph @ 1000 yards; 373 mph @ 5000 yards; 756 mph @ 10,000 yards, etc.).
g. It would probably be extremely difficult to imitate this photography for
fraudulent purposes.
This film is currently under examination by the U.S. Navy Photo Interpretation Laboratory, Anacostia. Estimated completion date: 15 January 1953.
2. Bright Light sighted from Presque Isle and Limestone Air Force Bases, Maine
This sighting occurred the night of 10-11 October 1952 from 23:00 to 03:00 local time, by observers at the weather stations at these Air Force Bases. The description of the light was "circular orange object with four green lights nearby." Theodolite sightings of elevation and azimuth were obtained. Weather was clear.
Status: A comparison of observed azimuths and elevations of the supposed object with the calculated position and relative motion of the planet Jupiter leave little doubt that the observed object was actually Jupiter.
3. Reported Sightings of a Strange Object in Florida
This sighting was reported by a Boy Scoutmaster to have occurred at 2150 local time on 19 August 1952 near West Palm Beach, Florida. According to the story given, the source was driving along deserted road in his car, together with four Boy Scouts. Sighting a strange light, source stopped his car, cautioned the boys to wait, and entered the palmetto undergrowth alone. When he did not return in a few minutes, and witnessing some strange lights in the vicinity of the scoutmaster, the boys went for help, returning with a deputy sheriff. The scoutmaster appeared, badly frightened, slightly burned on the forearms. His story was that he had see a large circular object about eight feet over his head which had released a "fire ball" which descended on him. He stated that he had thrown himself on the ground and "blacked out." There wee various other embroideries to the story. His cap was burned slightly and samples of grass taken from the immediate vicinity if the "sighting" differed strangely in appearance from samples 75 yards away.
Status: The background of the source indicates a unsavory personal reputation and criminal record, resulting in the belief that the report may have been an elaborate hoax. However, the unusual condition of the grass samples is currently unexplained. This fact, together with other aspects of the case, leave final determination in doubt at this time.
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
December 23, 1952
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Howard L. Bevis, President
COLUMBUS 10
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Office of the Dean
December 23, 1952
Dr. H. M. Chadwell
Apt. 1217
2800 Quebec Street, N. W.
Washington 8, D. C.
Dear Dr. Chadwell:
In pursuance of our telephone conversation of the other day, and in accordance with your request, I am confirming in writing the results I transmitted to you over the phone.
It is well known that in theodolite observations, elevations can be generally obtained more accurately than azimuths since the former depend only on accurate leveling but the latter depend upon a determination of the true north. Since most theodolite observers are interested in relative rates and not in absolute positions, it is no surprise that they do not pay too much attention to the exact determination of their zero points. Further, it is quite easy for even an observer of some experience to make an error in reading of some multiple of whole degrees. The observation made at Limestone, therefore, can very well be assumed to have both zero point error and an incorrect scale reading.
At the mean time of the observation, calculations made at the observatory here show that Jupiter had, at Presque Isle, an azimuth of 163 deg. and an elevation of 58.5 deg. This alone is sufficiently close to the mean of the readings from two stations to serve as strong evidence that the object observed was Jupiter. However, the clinching argument comes when one compares Jupiter's rate of motion in elevation and azimuth during the observation and the rates noted on the theodolite, at Presque Isle. The computed increment in elevation was 0.2 degrees (as compared to the observed 0.3 degrees) and the corresponding increment in azimuth was 1.8 degrees (as against the observed 1.9 degrees). In view of this strikingly close agreement in rates as well as general position in the sky, it would be an outrage to probability theory to consider the object observed was anything other than the time-honored planet Jupiter. The prosecution rests its case!
Wishing you the very best greetings of the season, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
J. Allen Hynek
J. Allen Hynek
Assistant Dean and
Professor of Astronomy
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
29 December 1952
2800 Quebec Street, N. W.
Apt. 1217
Washington 8, D. C.
29 December 1952
Professor J. Allen Hynek
Graduate School
The Ohio State University
Columbus 10, Ohio
Dear Professor Hynek:
Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 23 December confirming the astronomical calculations transmitted earlier by telephone. We are in agreement with your findings and appreciate your assistance in this matter.
It was a pleasure to renew our acquaintance at Dayton and to learn of your consultant work. I hope that we shall see you again in the not too distant future.
With best wishes for the coming year,
Cordially yours,
HM Chadwell
H. Marshall Chadwell
Distribution:
Opns/SI - 3 {1 - subject - Flying saucers}
AD/SI - 1 {1 - chrono}
OSI:FCDurant/mtw (29Dec52)
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
December 30, 1952
PROJECT MATTERHORN
JAMES FORRESTAL RESEARCH CENTER
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON, N.J.
MAIL: P.O. BOX 451, PRINCETON, N.J.
December 30, 1952
Mr. Frederick C. Durant
1420 Mount Vernon Memorial Boulevard
Alexandria, Virginia
Dear Mr. Durant
Summarizing our discussion of today of the problem which you and Professor H. P. Robertson have brought to my attention, I have learned that the question at issue has no directly visualizable connection with the work which I am doing for the Atomic Energy Commission. However, I have discovered that the question at issue is both interesting scientifically and has important defense aspects. You have asked me whether I could Take part in a meeting in Washington about the subject beginning Monday, January twelfth, lasting for five days. In reply I reported that I am perfectly willing to take part in such an interesting evaluation and planning session, if this participation is considered appropriate by the Atomic Energy Commission; or, in particular, by General Kenneth Fields, head of the Division of Military Applications. My primary obligation is to carry out the program for the Commission for which I am responsible here at Princeton. I consider this sufficiently important that I would not feel it appropriate to take part in these sessions in question unless told by General Fields that he though this was advisable.
Thanks for your very interesting briefing about a very fascinating problem.
Sincerely yours,
John A Wheeler
John A. Wheeler
JAW:MMM
K. Fields
H. P. Robertson
R. J. Woodrow
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
UNDATED DOCUMENTS
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WASHINGTON 25, DC
Dear Mr. Becker: Dec 29, 1952
Confirming our brief conversation in the hall the other day, I enclose a memorandum from General Maxwell on the subject. We will advise you when we receive the report referred to in this memo.
Sincerely,
Walter G. Whitman
WALTER G. WHITMAN
Chairman
Enclosure (1)
Mr. Loftus E. Becker
Deputy Director for Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
2430 E Street, N.W.
Washington 25, D. C.
(This document may be declassified upon removal of Confidential Attachment.)
The attachment, "a memorandum from General Maxwell on the subject" was not among the items supplied by the CIA.
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director (Intelligence)
THROUGH: Assistant Director, Intelligence Coordination
SUBJECT: Approval in Principle - External Research Project
Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects
REFERENCE : CIA Regulation 110-5-3,
CIA Regulation 50-17, 17, C
1. It is proposed that an external research project be established so that the available evidence on Unidentified Flying Objects can be analyzed and evaluated by an Ad Hoc Panel of top-level scientists in order to recommend what further action should be taken toward solution of this problem.
2. The proposed project is an important part of the effort of this office to improve intelligence relating to Unidentified Flying Objects and would materially assist the O/SI Task Force which has been working on this problem in cooperation with the Air Force at the request of the DCI since 20 August 1952.
3. It is anticipated that the proposed project would be established through CENIS and would utilize their facilities to obtain the services of the personnel required for the panel. Discussions have been held on the matter with Dr. Max Millikan, Director of CENIS, who has indicated his approval.
4. The proposed project would cost approximately $5,000 which is the amount estimated to be necessary to pay for the expenses of the Panel members (travel, per diem etc.) and the administrative overhead cost for CENIS.
5. The proposed project would not duplicate any known CIA activity.
6. The proposed project will not duplicate any known Department of Defense efforts. U. S. Air Force personnel will participate in meetings with the Panel.
7. Classification of the proposed project would be SECRET.
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
3. It is requested that approval in principle be given for the proposed project so that preliminary negotiations may be undertaken. In due course, the project will be submitted for final approval.
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
F I N .
Sample of documents related to UFOs of the C.I.A for 1952, uncensored.
SECURITY INFORMATION
DEC 2, 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR : Director of Central Intelligence
THRU: Deputy Director for Intelligence
SUBJECT : Unidentified Flying Objects
1. On 20 August, the DCI, after a briefing by OSI on the above subject, directed the preparation of an NSCID for submission to the Council stating the need for investigation and directing agencies concerned to cooperate in such investigations.
2. In attempting to draft such a directive and the supporting staff studies, it became apparent to DD/I, acting AD/SI and AD/IC that the problem was largely a research and development problem, and it was decided by DD/I at attempt to initiate action through R&DB. A conference was held between DI/USAF, Chairman of the R&DB, DD/I, Acting AD/SI and AD/IC at which time it was decided that Dr. Whitman, Chairman of R&DB, would investigate the possibility of undertaking research and development studies through Air Force agencies.
3. On approximately 6 November, we were advised by Chairman R&DB, that inquiries in the Air Staff did not disclose "undue concern" over this matter, but that it had been referred to the Air Defense Command for consideration. No further word has been received from R&DB.
4. Recent reports reaching CIA indicated that further action was desirable and another briefing by the cognizant A-2 and ATIC personnel was held on 25 November. At this time, the reports of incidents convince us that there is something going on that must have immediate attention. The details of some of these incidents have been discussed by AD/SI with DDCI. 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.
5. OSI is proceeding to the establishment of a consulting group of sufficient competence and stature to review this matter and convince the responsible authorities in the community that immediate research and development on this subject must be undertaken. This can be done expeditiously under the aegis of CENIS.
6. Attached hereto is a draft memorandum to the NSC and a simple draft NSC Directive establishing this matter as a priority project throughout the intelligence and defense research and development community.
H.M. Chadwell
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence
Attachments:
Draft memo to NSC with draft Directive
Distribution:
Orig. 1 - forward
1 - DD/I
1 - AD/SI
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
ER - 3 - 2808
MEMORANDUM TO : The Executive Secretary National Security Council
SUBJECT: Unidentified Flying Objects (Flying Saucers)
1. The Central Intelligence Agency has reviewed the current situation concerning unidentified flying objects which have caused extensive speculation in the press and have been the subject of concern to Government organizations. The Air Force, within the limitations of manpower which could be devoted to the subject, has thus far carried the full responsibility for investigating and analyzing individual reports of sightings. Since 1947, approximately 2000 official reports of sightings have been received and, of these, about 20% are as yet unexplained.
2. It is my view that this situation has possible implications for our national security which transcend the interests of a single service. A broader, coordinated effort should be initiated to develop a firm scientific understanding of the several phenomena which apparently are involved in these reports, and to assure ourselves that the incidents will not hamper our efforts in the Cold War or confuse our early warning system in case of an attack.
3. I therefore recommend that this Agency and the agencies of the Department of Defense be directed to formulate and carry out a program of intelligence and research activities required to solve the problem of instant positive identification of unidentified flying objects. A draft of an appropriate directive is attached.
Walter B. Smith
Director
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
D R A F T
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
SUBJECT: Unidentified flying objects
Pursuant to the provisions of section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947 and for the purposes annunciated in Paragraphs d and e thereof, the National Security Council hereby authorizes and directs that :
1. The Director of Central Intelligence shall formulate and carry out a program of intelligence and research activities as required to solve the problem of instant positive identification of unidentified flying objects.
2. Upon call of the Director of Central Intelligence, Government departments and agencies shall provide assistance in this program of intelligence and research to the extent of their capacity provided, however, that the DCI shall avoid duplication of activities presently directed toward the solution of this problem.
3. This effort shall be coordinated with the military services and the Research and Development Board of the Department of Defense, with the Psychological Board and other Governmental agencies as appropriate.
4. The Director of Central Intelligence shall disseminate information concerning the program of intelligence and research activities in this field to the various departments and agencies which have authorized interest therein.
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
3 December 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Flying Saucers
1. At 1100 yesterday morning I met with Dr. Julius A. Stratton, Executive Vice President and Provost of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. Max Millikan, Director of CENIS. I briefed them on the various new reports of sightings including the Limestone Base Case, The Florida Scout Master, the Utah Motion Pictures, etc. I also brought Dr. Stratton up to date on developments which had occurred since our previous discussion of the subject in August. Dr. Stratton reiterated his earlier position that this is a subject which must be investigated and he said that probably the best means of getting a thoroughly competent review of the problem would be through Project LINCOLN. He said, however, that in view of the delicate position in relation to Air Force, as a result of the "Summer Study Report", any acceptance of this project by LINCOLN must be based on Air Force concurrence or on an independent proposal from one of the other services. He said that Alfred Hill would be the best man to head the group. Assuming that it might prove impractical to place the Project at LINCOLN, we explored other possibilities including Princeton and Cal Tech. Dr. Stratton felt very strongly that Cal Tech would be the better of the two in view of the presence there of Robertson, Lauritson, Spitzer (on temporary duty from Princeton), Millikan's brother and others. Dr. Stratton asked particularly that we keep him informed of the progress that we make in having this problem investigated as he is personally very interested as well as fully aware of the potential danger and implications of the situation.
2. Following the meeting with Drs. Stratton and Millikan, I had lunch at the Faculty Club with Lloyd Berkner and Jerrold Zacharias and briefed them on the recent cases and our feelings regarding their implications. Berkner, while apparently interested in taking a personal part, felt strongly that the saucer problem should be thoroughly investigated from a scientific point of view. Zacharias did not appear to be greatly interested in the problem and made only one suggestion, i.e. that Shirley Quimby of Columbia University be brought into the picture. Quimby took his physics degree at the same time as Zacharias; is now at Columbia University, having during the war been a Navy scientist working on ASW. Zacharias suggested Quimby because the latter is probably the most expert man in the country on magic and general chicanery.
3. My conclusion from these conversations is that it will probably be necessary to secure the full backing of DCI in order that a scientific review of this problem may be laid on. Without this backing, it would probably be impossible to secure the Air Force cooperation which would be necessary, particularly in the matter of the availability of reports, etc.,
P.G. Strong Orig - Subject
OSI:PGS:bxd P. G. STRONG 1 - Chrono
1 – Daily
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
4 December 1952
Security Information
IAC-M-90
4 December 1952
INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting Held in Director's
Conference Room, Administration Building
Central Intelligence Agency, on 4 December 1952
Acting Deputy Director (Intelligence)
Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Robert Amory, Jr.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Mr. W. Park Armstrong, Jr., Special Assistant, Intelligence Department of State.
Brigadier General John M. Willems, acting for Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the
Army.
Rear Admiral Carl F. Espe, Director of Naval Intelligence, Department of the Navy.
Major General John M. Samford, Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, United States Air Force.
Mr. Walter F. Colby, Director of Intelligence, Atomic Energy Commission.
Brigadier General Edward H. Porter, Deputy Director for Intelligence, The Joint Staff.
Mr. Meffert W. Kuhrtz, acting for the Assistant to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
ALSO PRESENT
Dr. Sherman Kent, Central Intelligence Agency.
Dr. H. Marshall Chadwell, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Paul Borel, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Ludwell L. Montague, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Philip Strong, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Joseph W. Smith, Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. William C. Trueheart, Department of State.
Mr. Myron Burgin, Department of State.
Lieutenant Colonel T. C. Anderson, Department of the Army.
Lieutenant Colonel Edgar H. Thompson, Jr., Department of the Army.
Colonel John J. Morrow, United States Air Force.
Colonel Jack E. Thomas, United States Air Force.
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Grant, United States Air Force.
Colonel S. M. Lansing, The Joint Staff.
Captain John A. Holbrook, USN, The Joint Staff.
Richard D. Drain
Acting Secretary
DECLASSIFIED PER SEC 3(A), EO11652
APPROVED FOR RELEASE 007789 IAC-M-90
DATE 6 October 1978 4 December 1952
Approval of Minutes
1. Action: The minutes of the last meeting, 1 December 1952 (IAC-M-89), were approved.
Conditions and Trends in Latin
America Affecting U. S. Security
(NIE-70)
2. Action: Approved with minor modifications.
Unidentified Flying Objects
3. Action: 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.
b. Draft and circulate to the IAC a proposed NSCID, which would signify the IAC concern
in the subject and authorize coordination with appropriate non-IAC departments and
agencies.
4. Discussion: The Acting Chairman, Mr. Amory, presented to the committee the DCI's request that this subject be informally discussed. Dr. Chadwell briefly reviewed the evidence and peripheral considerations, and noted that most of the available evidence is processed by ATIC. General Samford offered his full cooperation. It was recognized that the problem is best approached if directly related to specific problems of intelligence and defense. It was thought desirable that the action noted above under "a" be undertaken immediately, with consideration of a proposed NSCID to depend in some measure on the results achieved by the scientists' studies.
Security Information
IAC-M-90
4 December 1952
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
STANDARD FORM NO. 64
Office Memorandum - UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
TO: DAD/SI DATE: 9 December 1952
FROM : H. U. Graham
SUBJECT: FCC Monitoring and Flying Saucers
1. In accordance with your request, I interviewed Mr. Irving Weston of the Field Engineering and Monitoring Division of the FCC to determine whether the Commission at present has any knowledge of unexplained radio signals which might possibly be connected with unidentified flying saucers.
2. Unless such signals were reasonably persistent or were causing interference to established services, it is unlikely that they would be intercepted,
or if intercepted, the subject of inquiry. This is because the stations are, in general, involved in special assignments and have a minimum of time for general cruising of the spectrum.
3. The Commission has operating 12 full time monitoring stations and 6 part time monitoring stations. Two (2) of the stations are in Alaska and one (1) in Hawaii. Because of the short range of frequencies above 30 mc/s., monitoring between 30 and about 200 mc/s. is confined pretty much to transmitters in the immediate vicinity. Most of the monitoring stations have equipment for higher frequencies, including the AH/APR-4 receiver, but make little use thereof. VHF monitoring is done to some extent by traveling inspectors with automobile receivers. It seemed likely using the example of the concerted effort to identify the first diathermy signals back in 1935 and the more recent efforts which preceded the explanation of the VHF "bursts", that any persistent occurrences of radio signals that might come from flying saucers, if below 30 mc/s., would soon be the object of considerable interest at the FCC and elsewhere.
4. The FCC maintains a file in the Briggs Building of all reported intercepts of all its monitoring stations by frequency and by call letters extending back three or four years. this file is particularly valuable in the recognition of new signals which may be reported. Information tabulated includes frequency, call letters, type of emission, service, monitoring station reporting, and an intercept supporting the identification.
5. Classification of the discussion was considered Secret.
HU Graham
H. U. GRAHAM
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
9 December 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Unidentified Flying Objects
1. At 10:15 hours today I talked by telephone with Captain Edward J. Ruppelt (Chief, Aerial Phenomena Branch, Analysis Division, ATIC). The purpose of the call was to determine if Captain Ruppelt would be in Washington during the next few days so that he might meet with Dr. Robertson. Also, if there had been any developments in the Limestone-Presque Isle case.
2. Captain Ruppelt stated that he had put in a request to come to Washington last week but that he had been "running into a snag" in getting away and he intimated that his intention to specifically visit CIA may have been the difficulty. By oblique references it was determined that Colonel Donald L. Bower (chief, Analysis Division) was blocking his trip. Note: If this is true, it is difficult to understand since Colonel Bower, in discussions with E. Tauss and myself on 25 November, indicated complete willingness for cooperation. Ruppelt stated that he would try again and hoped to be in Washington next week. I gave no indication of the agreements reached on this subject in the IAC meeting on 4 December.
3. Regarding the Limestone-Presque Isle case, Captain Ruppelt reported that the observation is suspected of being the planet Saturn. A sighting of Saturn with the same theodolite will be made within the next few days. An examination of this data with possible theodolite reading errors should indicate whether the sighting could conceivably have been of this planet. I find it difficult to believe that the moons of Saturn could bee seen visibly.
4. Captain Ruppelt stated that he had a package of analyses and reports which he desired to have O/SI study and was planning to hand-carry to Washington. I mentioned that someone from O/SI might be making a trip to ATIC within the next week or so. Ruppelt stated that he would be pleased to hear from me at any time. His office telephone number is Dayton, Ohio, Kenmore 7111, Extension 65365 and his home telephone number is Walnut 7113.
F C Durant
F. C. Durant
OSI/FCDurant:bm
Distribution:
Orig - Subject file
1 - Daily reading file
1 - Chrono file
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
10 December 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR : The Director of Central Intelligence
THROUGH : Deputy Director (Intelligence)
SUBJECT : Unidentified Flying Objects
REFERENCE : Request of the Director of 10 December 1952
1. The following is a summary of the current situation with respect to the investigation of unidentified flying objects. Recent incidents include:
a. Movies of ten (10) unidentified flying objects (unexplained on the basis of natural
phenomena or known types of aircraft), near Tremonton, Utah, on 2 July 1952.
b. A very brilliant unidentified light over the coast of Maine for about four hours on the night of 10-11 October at a height computed to be two or three times that which can be
sustained by any known device.
c. Alleged contact with a device on the ground in Florida late this summer which left some
presently unexplained after-effects.
d. Numerous other sightings of lights or objects which either in configuration or performance do not resemble any known aerial vehicle or explainable natural phenomena.
2. In furtherance of IAC action of 4 December, O/SI has been working with Dr. H. P. Robertson, consultant, toward establishing a panel of top scientists and engineers in the fields of astrophysics, nuclear energy, electronics, etc. to review this situation. Wholehearted cooperation has been secured by DI/USAF and ATIC, and a visit by AD/SI, Dr. Robertson, and Mr. Durant of SI to ATIC is planned for Friday. It is hoped to organize the panel and undertake substantive scientific review of this subject within the next two to three weeks.
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director
Distribution: Scientific Intelligence
DD/I - 1
Opns/SI – 1
Prod/SI - 1
AD/SI – 2
OSI:RLC/mtw (10Dec52)
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
12 December 1952
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
OPERATIONS RESEARCH OFFICE
6410 Connecticut Avenue
Chevy Chase, Maryland
OPERATING UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TELEPHONE: Oliver 4200
12 December 1952
Dr. H. P. Robertson
Cosmos Club
2121 Massachusetts Ave., N. W.
Washington, D. C.
Dear H. P.:
Here is that article you mentioned from the New Yorker, which I found most interesting and informative. I have listed below a few items which seemed to me to need further discussion:
Patrol Cameras
Fred Whipple at Harvard has had considerable experience in developing and using small, equatorially mounted cameras. These are exposed for several hours through a rotating sector, and show meteor trail as a series of dashes an a background of stars, this providing the meteor angular velocity. In many cases two such cameras are used, separated by several miles, so that the space track of the meteor can be derived.
As I recall, meteor patrol cameras have been used in the vicinity of Boston and southern New Mexico only. All the photographs are preserved, and I am sure there have been no unidentified objects of any type to date. A possible modification of this technique which would provide more complete coverage is to use the Greenstein-Henyey wide-angle camera, which photographs 160 deg. of the sky at once. Such a camera is in use at Yerkes Observatory and is reported most recently in a paper by Sharpless and Osterbrook in the Astrophysical Journal, 1951. The major difficulty of operation would be changing the film, which might be made automatic.
Another use of cameras could be on selected ground radar scopes. Possibly such a camera should be kept in stand-by status and triggered by the operator when unidentified objects are on the screen.
The issue of light, hand-held cameras to aircraft pilots is another fair possibility noted in the New Yorker article.
Study of Communications Systems
One of our ORO projects is undertaking such a study, and has collected a large amount of literature. The British Army Operational Research Group has made several studies of air raid reporting systems as used in exercises, which show the distortion and "noise" introduced in any reporting system. There is a possibility of obtaining comparable data on such false alarms to fire departments and "flaps" in several military situations (such as North Africa in 1942). I have been intrigued with the electronic analogue of a communications system with feedback. The circumstances leading to instability of such a system might be measured if a simple theory can be postulated; e.g., if something analogous to impedance of the circuit determines instability.
Dr. Robertson, 12 December 1952
Mass Psychology
It is clear that a simple statement has not and will not convince the public. A psychologist may have some theoretical framework in which past "flaps" of this kind can be analyzed and the results extended to the present difficulty.
General Requirement
It seems to me that the major difficulty as present is the lack of a well-defined attitude among responsible officials: either there is or there is not convincing evidence of significant phenomena. To resolve this question it must be decided in advance what level of completeness is necessary in explaining reports, and what indications of hostile intent are necessary to make the reported objects of importance. It might help to point out the difference between open-mindedness and indecision, and to suggest some level of credulity below which reports will not even be considered.
Dr. Aden B. Meinel who is an assistant professor of astrophysics at the Yerkes Observatory, who has been concerned with the photography of aurora and who has designed complex wide-angle cameras for the Air Force under a contract with Boston University, might be helpful in discussion of cameras noted above and of auroral phenomena. However, the Air Force authorities here have no record of his clearance. If you are interested in him, we could ask him by telephone what is clearance is and with what organization.
Yours sincerely,
Thornton
Thornton Page
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
DEC 18 1952
MEMORANDUM FOR : The Director of Central Intelligence
THROUGH : Deputy Director
SUBJECT : Unidentified Flying Objects
REFERENCE : (a) Request of the Director of 10 December 1952.
(b) Memo from AD/SI to Director dated 10 December 1952.
1. Pursuant to the request of the Director, the following amplification of Reference (b) and review of the current situation is submitted. A preliminary review of the USAF investigation of this subject has been completed. With respect to the recent incidents enumerated in reference (b), additional information has been obtained which is appended as Tab A.
2. A trip to the Air Technical Intelligence Center was made on Friday, 12 December by AD/SI, Dr. H. P. Robertson (consultant), and Mr. F. C. Durant (operations Staff/SI). During this visit the O/SI group was briefed on the current status of he investigation, and copies of selected case studies and progress reports were obtained. This material has been subsequently studied in detail.
3. There still exists no reasonable evidence that the objects sighted are of foreign origin. While there is no indication that these objects represent a direct threat to the national defense, there are certain potential dangers which are related to these sightings. As a result of the trip and these conclusions. O/SI is proceeding with plans to convene a group (probably not more than three), of top level consultants in the fields of physics (radar and upper atmosphere), astrophysics and astronomy, to review the evidence and recommend with respect to:
a. Methodology of investigation of unidentified flying objects.
b. Instrumentation to obtain data in future sightings.
c. Methods of rapid identification of unidentified flying objects.
d. Desirability for convening of a larger panel.
We are deferring for the present the convening of a large panel of diverse scientific interests for a detailed review of the substantive aspects of the problem because of insufficient and incomplete data.
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence
Enclosure - Tab A
Distribution:
Director - orig & 1
DD/I - 1
P&E/SI - 1
W&E/SI - 1
Opns/SI - 1
AD/SI - 2
OSI:RLC:FCD/mtr
(18 Dec 52)
1. Motion Pictures, Tremonton, Utah
This case involves the sighting and photographing (Kodachrome film) of ten bright lights moving across the sky on 2 July 1952 in rough formation. Source is a Chief Photographer's Mate, USN, with 17 years photographic experience. The local time was 1110; weather conditions bright, clear, no clouds. Objects appeared to be 'milling about' while traveling in a westerly direction across the sky. Source was driving along the road when the sighting occurred. He stopped the car and photographed the event with his personal camera. Toward the end of the sighting, one object separated from the rest and reversed course across the sky.
Status: ATIC Photographic Laboratory examination of the film resulted in following conclusions:
a. 10 objects, all alike in movement and size.
b. Decidedly improbable that they are birds or balloons.
c. Exact nature cannot be determined, because they are visible only as small spots
of light. It can be deduced, however, that they are either non-spherical in shape and similar to bright metal in reflectance or else variably self-luminous. Objects which follow similar courses show similar brightness fluctuations which could be caused by their taking similar flight attitudes.
d. Apparently a coordination of movement to some extent among these objects.
They seem to move in formations which are probably 3-dimensional in arrangement.
e. The movements suggest flight paths consisting of skew curves in space.
f. The single object which reversed course remained reasonably uniform in
brightness. It followed a nearly straight line path with reasonable uniformity of motion at an angular velocity of about 2.1 deg./sec. (This is the equivalent to the following speeds: 37 mph @ 500 yards; 75 mph @ 1000 yards; 373 mph @ 5000 yards; 756 mph @ 10,000 yards, etc.).
g. It would probably be extremely difficult to imitate this photography for
fraudulent purposes.
This film is currently under examination by the U.S. Navy Photo Interpretation Laboratory, Anacostia. Estimated completion date: 15 January 1953.
2. Bright Light sighted from Presque Isle and Limestone Air Force Bases, Maine
This sighting occurred the night of 10-11 October 1952 from 23:00 to 03:00 local time, by observers at the weather stations at these Air Force Bases. The description of the light was "circular orange object with four green lights nearby." Theodolite sightings of elevation and azimuth were obtained. Weather was clear.
Status: A comparison of observed azimuths and elevations of the supposed object with the calculated position and relative motion of the planet Jupiter leave little doubt that the observed object was actually Jupiter.
3. Reported Sightings of a Strange Object in Florida
This sighting was reported by a Boy Scoutmaster to have occurred at 2150 local time on 19 August 1952 near West Palm Beach, Florida. According to the story given, the source was driving along deserted road in his car, together with four Boy Scouts. Sighting a strange light, source stopped his car, cautioned the boys to wait, and entered the palmetto undergrowth alone. When he did not return in a few minutes, and witnessing some strange lights in the vicinity of the scoutmaster, the boys went for help, returning with a deputy sheriff. The scoutmaster appeared, badly frightened, slightly burned on the forearms. His story was that he had see a large circular object about eight feet over his head which had released a "fire ball" which descended on him. He stated that he had thrown himself on the ground and "blacked out." There wee various other embroideries to the story. His cap was burned slightly and samples of grass taken from the immediate vicinity if the "sighting" differed strangely in appearance from samples 75 yards away.
Status: The background of the source indicates a unsavory personal reputation and criminal record, resulting in the belief that the report may have been an elaborate hoax. However, the unusual condition of the grass samples is currently unexplained. This fact, together with other aspects of the case, leave final determination in doubt at this time.
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
December 23, 1952
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Howard L. Bevis, President
COLUMBUS 10
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Office of the Dean
December 23, 1952
Dr. H. M. Chadwell
Apt. 1217
2800 Quebec Street, N. W.
Washington 8, D. C.
Dear Dr. Chadwell:
In pursuance of our telephone conversation of the other day, and in accordance with your request, I am confirming in writing the results I transmitted to you over the phone.
It is well known that in theodolite observations, elevations can be generally obtained more accurately than azimuths since the former depend only on accurate leveling but the latter depend upon a determination of the true north. Since most theodolite observers are interested in relative rates and not in absolute positions, it is no surprise that they do not pay too much attention to the exact determination of their zero points. Further, it is quite easy for even an observer of some experience to make an error in reading of some multiple of whole degrees. The observation made at Limestone, therefore, can very well be assumed to have both zero point error and an incorrect scale reading.
At the mean time of the observation, calculations made at the observatory here show that Jupiter had, at Presque Isle, an azimuth of 163 deg. and an elevation of 58.5 deg. This alone is sufficiently close to the mean of the readings from two stations to serve as strong evidence that the object observed was Jupiter. However, the clinching argument comes when one compares Jupiter's rate of motion in elevation and azimuth during the observation and the rates noted on the theodolite, at Presque Isle. The computed increment in elevation was 0.2 degrees (as compared to the observed 0.3 degrees) and the corresponding increment in azimuth was 1.8 degrees (as against the observed 1.9 degrees). In view of this strikingly close agreement in rates as well as general position in the sky, it would be an outrage to probability theory to consider the object observed was anything other than the time-honored planet Jupiter. The prosecution rests its case!
Wishing you the very best greetings of the season, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
J. Allen Hynek
J. Allen Hynek
Assistant Dean and
Professor of Astronomy
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
29 December 1952
2800 Quebec Street, N. W.
Apt. 1217
Washington 8, D. C.
29 December 1952
Professor J. Allen Hynek
Graduate School
The Ohio State University
Columbus 10, Ohio
Dear Professor Hynek:
Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 23 December confirming the astronomical calculations transmitted earlier by telephone. We are in agreement with your findings and appreciate your assistance in this matter.
It was a pleasure to renew our acquaintance at Dayton and to learn of your consultant work. I hope that we shall see you again in the not too distant future.
With best wishes for the coming year,
Cordially yours,
HM Chadwell
H. Marshall Chadwell
Distribution:
Opns/SI - 3 {1 - subject - Flying saucers}
AD/SI - 1 {1 - chrono}
OSI:FCDurant/mtw (29Dec52)
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
December 30, 1952
PROJECT MATTERHORN
JAMES FORRESTAL RESEARCH CENTER
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON, N.J.
MAIL: P.O. BOX 451, PRINCETON, N.J.
December 30, 1952
Mr. Frederick C. Durant
1420 Mount Vernon Memorial Boulevard
Alexandria, Virginia
Dear Mr. Durant
Summarizing our discussion of today of the problem which you and Professor H. P. Robertson have brought to my attention, I have learned that the question at issue has no directly visualizable connection with the work which I am doing for the Atomic Energy Commission. However, I have discovered that the question at issue is both interesting scientifically and has important defense aspects. You have asked me whether I could Take part in a meeting in Washington about the subject beginning Monday, January twelfth, lasting for five days. In reply I reported that I am perfectly willing to take part in such an interesting evaluation and planning session, if this participation is considered appropriate by the Atomic Energy Commission; or, in particular, by General Kenneth Fields, head of the Division of Military Applications. My primary obligation is to carry out the program for the Commission for which I am responsible here at Princeton. I consider this sufficiently important that I would not feel it appropriate to take part in these sessions in question unless told by General Fields that he though this was advisable.
Thanks for your very interesting briefing about a very fascinating problem.
Sincerely yours,
John A Wheeler
John A. Wheeler
JAW:MMM
K. Fields
H. P. Robertson
R. J. Woodrow
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
UNDATED DOCUMENTS
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WASHINGTON 25, DC
Dear Mr. Becker: Dec 29, 1952
Confirming our brief conversation in the hall the other day, I enclose a memorandum from General Maxwell on the subject. We will advise you when we receive the report referred to in this memo.
Sincerely,
Walter G. Whitman
WALTER G. WHITMAN
Chairman
Enclosure (1)
Mr. Loftus E. Becker
Deputy Director for Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
2430 E Street, N.W.
Washington 25, D. C.
(This document may be declassified upon removal of Confidential Attachment.)
The attachment, "a memorandum from General Maxwell on the subject" was not among the items supplied by the CIA.
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director (Intelligence)
THROUGH: Assistant Director, Intelligence Coordination
SUBJECT: Approval in Principle - External Research Project
Concerned with Unidentified Flying Objects
REFERENCE : CIA Regulation 110-5-3,
CIA Regulation 50-17, 17, C
1. It is proposed that an external research project be established so that the available evidence on Unidentified Flying Objects can be analyzed and evaluated by an Ad Hoc Panel of top-level scientists in order to recommend what further action should be taken toward solution of this problem.
2. The proposed project is an important part of the effort of this office to improve intelligence relating to Unidentified Flying Objects and would materially assist the O/SI Task Force which has been working on this problem in cooperation with the Air Force at the request of the DCI since 20 August 1952.
3. It is anticipated that the proposed project would be established through CENIS and would utilize their facilities to obtain the services of the personnel required for the panel. Discussions have been held on the matter with Dr. Max Millikan, Director of CENIS, who has indicated his approval.
4. The proposed project would cost approximately $5,000 which is the amount estimated to be necessary to pay for the expenses of the Panel members (travel, per diem etc.) and the administrative overhead cost for CENIS.
5. The proposed project would not duplicate any known CIA activity.
6. The proposed project will not duplicate any known Department of Defense efforts. U. S. Air Force personnel will participate in meetings with the Panel.
7. Classification of the proposed project would be SECRET.
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
SECURITY INFORMATION
3. It is requested that approval in principle be given for the proposed project so that preliminary negotiations may be undertaken. In due course, the project will be submitted for final approval.
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence
((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))
F I N .
