The CIA UFO Papers

by Dan Wright

  Organized by OSI and coming together quickly, the core group of five scientists formed the Scientific Advisory Panel, headed by Cal Tech's physicist Dr. Howard P. Robertson. The group met at OSI's offices for several hours over four days, January 14–17, 1953.2

  Soon to be known broadly, if informally, as the Robertson Panel, the academics each argued for and against the claimed evidence. Informal commentaries regarding the integrity of film and photographic cases included Tremonton, Utah; Great Falls, Montana; and Yaak, Montana. Considerable discussion was also devoted to incidents at Port Huron, Michigan; Bellefontaine, Ohio; Presque Isle Air Force Base, Maine; Limestone (later Loring) AFB, Maine; and Haneda AFB, Japan. Among fifteen additional cases the panel paid significant attention to was an alleged close encounter involving a Florida scoutmaster and four boy scouts. In total, 75 case files from 1951–52 were addressed. The remaining fourteen cases reviewed stemmed from 1950 or before.3

  Fred C. Durant of OSI, who served as the panel's recording secretary, began preparing a report of its findings while the sessions were still ongoing, finalizing it a day after the meetings ended, on January 18. The Durant Report contained the official Robertson Panel Report materials plus minutes of the group's discussions, lists of all staff and participants, and related details and would prove superior to the more basic Robertson Report.

  Perhaps the most contentious case evaluation of a supposed aerial anomaly concerned motion pictures at Tremonton, Utah, as taken by a military photographer using a state-of-the-art movie camera and film. The panel determined the photographer had captured either polyethylene balloons or a flock of seagulls in flight. The panel was seemingly unimpressed overall by the meager amount of quality data to bolster the countless anecdotal accounts nationwide.

  Rather than recommend steps to improve fact gathering, the members' findings were predictable, setting a tone for the scientific community's attitude toward the subject thereafter. Foremost was their conclusion that UFOs offered no direct threat to national security.

  The panel had found no evidence to suggest basic principles of science beyond what was already known. They recommended abandoning any effort to improve the quality of data received since it would only serve to show that UFOs do not exist.

  In the panel's opinion, most cases had a reasonable explanation, while better data, deductive reasoning, and the scientific method would likely have explained the rest. Sighting brevity and unclear witness statements left some cases unexplained. Solving most or all incoming sighting reports “would be a great waste of effort,” the group concluded.4

  As an aggressive and controversial assertion, the Robertson Panel concluded that national security agencies should “take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired.” Such debunking efforts, the panel recommended, would preferably include media airtime, military training, and monitoring of civilian ufology groups.5

  The next week, the group issued its formal report, “Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects, 14–17 January 1953.” The group followed up with a detailed 21-page document expressing a variety of thoughts generated during the four days of panel sessions.6

  The majority of sightings could in all likelihood be measured in seconds, not minutes, the panel asserted. Further, in many cases the witness statements were either convoluted or otherwise unclear, leaving them unexplained for the wrong reasons. The Air Force or other government agency attempting to solve most or all sighting accounts would be a wasted effort unless it aided training or education of the public. Charles Fort had written on “strange things in the sky,” and how over the centuries no single explanation accounted for “things seen.”7

  The Formalized Report

  The Robertson (Durant) Report, assessing numerous factors arising from the group's discussions, emphatically proposed an ongoing program of incident debunking and public education in order to rid the nation of supposed UFO mischief once and for all.

  Evidence Presented

  Twenty-two forms of evidence were included within its (arguably) broad inquiry:

  ATIC's 75 best-documented cases, 1951-52, plus 14 earlier cases

  ATIC status and progress reports on Projects Grudge and Blue Book

  Progress reports on Project Stork Note: This interagency group was quoted in the minutes of the panel's first meeting: “It is very reasonable to believe that some type of unusual object or phenomena is being observed as many of the sightings have been made by highly qualified sources.”8

  Summary report of sightings at Holloman AFB, NM

  USAF report on Project Twinkle (green fireballs)

  Outline of Project Pounce (Kirtland AFB proposed UFO investigations)

  Films of sightings at Tremonton, Utah, July 2, 1952, and Great Falls, Montana, August 8, 1950

  Summary report of 89 selected cases

  Draft of ATIC manual

  Unexplained sightings, by US location

  US balloon-launching sites

  Selected balloon flight paths in respect to sightings

  Sightings frequency, 1948-52

  Categories of sighting explanations

  Film transparencies of balloons in bright sunlight

  Film of seagulls in sunlight

  Intelligence reports of USSR interest in US sightings

  USAF reporting forms and Air Force, Army, Navy orders on the subject

  Sample polyethylene pillow balloon

  JANP (Joint Army-Navy Publication) manual on radar characteristics

  Official letters, foreign intelligence reports

  Magazine, newspaper articles

  On Lack of Danger

  “[T]here was no evidence of a direct threat to national security.” During World War II, foo fighters, a.k.a. balls of light, may have been electrostatic (akin to St. Elmo's Fire), electromagnetic, or reflections from airborne ice crystals—the question was never resolved. They were the flying saucers of the 1943–45 period.9

  Air Force Reporting System

  Public pressure probably caused some of the Air Force's concern. In a true crisis, mass low-grade reports of nocturnal meandering lights could overload communications, mislead the public, and hide genuinely hostile acts. A concerted program to de-emphasize the subject needed to be carried out.10

  Artifacts of Extraterrestrial Origins

  The panel agreed that Earth may one day be visited by ETs, but it rejected the material at hand as evidence thereof. All the cases reviewed were raw and unevaluated. “[P]resent astronomical knowledge of the solar system makes the existence of intelligent beings (as we know the term) elsewhere than on the earth extremely unlikely ...”11

  Concerning the July 1952 Tremonton, Utah, incident, US Navy photographer and officer Delbert Newhouse, who had taken the footage, used Kodachrome film (1600 frames/minute), which strengthened the case. He testified afterward that there were twelve metallic saucer-shaped discs in his viewfinder. The team of USN and ATIC personnel who initially investigated the case argued that it eliminated birds, balloons, aircraft, and reflections; thus by deduction it must be a genuine unknown. The panel rejected that conclusion. Polyethylene pillow weather balloons, released in that area routinely, offered one alternative. Note: This explanation, of course, begged the question of why so many weather balloons would be sent aloft simultaneously.12

  The August 1950 film from Great Falls, Montana, purportedly captured two rotating discs. The panel pondered, “in bright sunlight, the apparent motions, sizes, and brightnesses [sic] of the objects were considered strongly to suggest birds ...” Alternately, they were reflections from an aircraft known to be in the area.

  Note: The Great Falls film seen by the Robertson Panel—taken in bright daylight by a minor league baseball manager tending his ballpark—was particularly problematic, for they may not have viewed the best of it. The film taker had voluntarily loaned the film to the Air Force, likely Project Grudge or som
eone on its behalf, in October 1950. When the man later received it back, he realized about thirty-five frames were missing. These had shown the discs at their clearest and obviously rotating, he claimed. So, did the panel see the full-length Great Falls film or the shortened version?13

  The panel asserted parenthetically that the Tremonton and Great Falls cases should not have been linked by the USN/ATIC team.

  Follow-up on all 1,000+ sightings per year (1,900 in 1952) would waste limited resources. Further, long delays in reaching conclusions diminished their intelligence value. Scientists, the panelists stipulated, should accept that a phenomenon, to be accepted, had to be completely and convincingly documented. The burden of proof was on the witness.

  Potential Related Dangers

  While a direct threat to national security from these events was wholly lacking, the public's fascination with them posed other threats. Those included the misidentification of an actual enemy attack, an overload of emergency channels with false UFO claims, and efforts by a foreign nation to engage in psychological warfare, subjecting the United States to mass hysteria. An educational program could help filter out invalid sighting reports and keep the subject in proper perspective.

  Geographic Locations of Unexplained Sightings

  The ATIC map showed clusters of sightings near sensitive areas such as Los Alamos, New Mexico. This may have been an expected result, given the numbers of security staff stationed outdoors at such sites.

  Instrumentation to Obtain Data

  Placement of cameras at airports would not likely produce valuable data but might allay public concerns. No striking unidentified object had been recorded by astronomers watching the sky.

  Radar Problem of Mutual Interference

  Given the fact that radar as a technical field was still very young, occasional overlaps of radar signals could cause false UFO reports.

  Unexplained Cosmic Ray Phenomena

  Two recorded cases of radioactivity were not strong; that factor in UFO reports was rejected.

  Educational Program

  Such an effort should have two aims: training and debunking. Educating the public would improve witness recognition of conventional objects and natural phenomena and thereby reduce false sightings. That would involve enlisted, command, and research personnel.

  Debunking sighting reports would be expected to reduce public interest. Television, movies, and magazine articles would be involved, focusing on cases originally puzzling but later explained. This would “reduce the current gullibility of the public and consequently their susceptibility to clever hostile propaganda.” Using true cases would be a forceful argument.

  A training/debunking program would take up to two years. By then, the “dangers related to ‘flying saucers’ should have been greatly reduced if not eliminated.” Psychologists, writers, and a film producer would be necessary. The remnants of ATIC could focus on cases of scientific value.14

  Unofficial Investigating Groups

  “[S]uch organizations should be watched because of their potentially great influence on mass thinking if widespread sightings should occur. The apparent irresponsibility and the possible use of such groups for subversive purposes should be kept in mind.”15

  Increase in Number of Sightings

  All factors considered, overall reported sightings could be expected to increase.

  On January 28, 1953, OSI Director Chadwell wrote to Robertson to indicate the report was “on its way up the ladder with our concurrence. . .” The full report plus lists of evidence received and personnel involved would be sent separately. These would collectively become known as the Durant Report.16

  This file contained a January 20 letter from Robertson to “Chad” in which the scientist exulted, “Perhaps that'll take care of the Forteans for a while.”17

  Note: The Fortean Society, founded in 1931 and continuing in some form to the present, celebrated the works of Charles Fort, best known for his collection of accounts of anomalous phenomena entitled The Book of the Damned (1919).

  Reflecting the hectic 1952 pace of citizen reports was a provocative IFDRB prepared on February 9, 1953, by (redacted), an Algerian intelligence source. The three-page submittal contained material spanning July 3 to November 20, 1952. It was titled “Reports of Unconventional Aircraft in French Africa, Corsica, and Western Europe.” The document drew from multiple newspaper accounts.18

  According to one press account, on July 3, 1952, 7:00 p.m., at Oran Department, Algeria, a man driving home had noticed a small silvery disc in the distance, rotating rapidly and maneuvering slowly. After three minutes, the unknown raced toward the sea. The Algerian weather bureau proclaimed a weather balloon as the source.19

  On October 2, 1952, several Corsicans had observed a luminous spindle-shaped object at altitude. Four days later, at 6:30 p.m. on the Algerian coastline, numerous persons had watched a flaming cigar-shaped object cross the sky.20

  Immediate Aftermath

  Having finalized the CIA-commissioned Robertson Panel Report days earlier, in the last week of January 1953, OSI Director Chadwell wrote to Dr. Julius Stratton, Provost at MIT.21 As earlier promised, this six-page letter was to update Stratton on the “problem of ‘unidentified flying objects.’” At a December meeting the Intelligence Advisory Committee (comprising representatives of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Joint Chiefs of Staff, State Department, Atomic Energy Commission, and FBI) had recommended that the CIA assemble a panel to examine the problem. Experts in physics, radar, and astronomy were desired. Thus had Robertson's group come together.22

  The panel recommended improved training of relevant personnel and a debunking effort to reduce public interest. Also, civilian investigative groups should be watched because of their potential influence on mass thinking and the possibility of subversive behavior. National security agencies should take “immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired.”23

  The CIA concurred in the conclusions and recommendations of the Robertson Panel. Since the problems identified were operational, not intelligence related, the Agency would be only indirectly involved in the future. Knowledge of the CIA's interest would be restricted in view of probable misunderstanding by the public.

  And Then Durant

  The lengthier Durant Report was prepared by Fred C. Durant, CIA special agent and missile expert, who served as the Robertson Panel's recording secretary.24 Two Durant Report attachments, both plain non-sourced sheets, explored “possible explanations” for UFO sightings: (a) psychological—hysteria, hallucinations, hoaxes; (b) misidentification of conventional aircraft, other known objects, or nature, including reflections, missiles, searchlights, balloons, kites, birds, bugs, airborne dust, or seeds; (c) natural phenomena—light aberrations, reflections, refractions, anomalous radar propagation, ionization, static electricity, ball lightning, planets, meteors, other astronomical bodies; (d) unconventional man-made devices in the United States, USSR, other foreign nations; (e) extraterrestrial origin—living creatures or machines.

  Among the notable suggestions made by panel members was to expand the size of ATIC and insist that sighting reports be declassified ASAP.25

  USAF Stands Down

  In the wake of the Robertson Panel Report and the follow-up Durant Report, the Air Force continued to maintain a UFO interest but with reduced emphasis. At least that was their intention. ATIC transferred Project Blue Book to the Air Defense Command (later NORAD) headquarters in Colorado, from which it would perform any necessary investigations. ATIC continued to check sighting reports against meteorological, astronomical, aircraft, and balloon data. Findings were cross-referenced by date, location, source, type of observation, and conclusion drawn. About 10 percent of sightings remained unsolved.

  Following the Robertson Report's release, the CIA decided not to prepare a National Security Council Intelligence Directive on the matter. UFOs were of only minimal intel
ligence interest, one of the universe's unsolved mysteries, as it were.

  Operationally, though, the subject would remain on a front burner. Another wave of reports such as in 1952 could potentially interfere with air defenses, overload lines of communication, or serve as an enemy's psychological offensive timed to an actual attack.

  The Agency embarked on the recommended two-pronged effort. A program to educate the public to recognize conventional aircrafts and natural phenomena would reduce the volume of sighting reports, while debunking new cases would serve to retard public interest in the subject.

  Concurrently, it was agreed internally that civilian groups, such as the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO), should be surveilled because of their influence on public opinion and potential for subversive behavior. The Tucson, Arizona-based civilian investigative group, headed up by Coral and Jim Lorenzen, had garnered some interest nationwide and was in a position to feed a potential public frenzy.

  A January 30 openly private Memorandum for Record by OSI's Philip Strong was mysteriously titled “Briefing of ONE Board on Unidentified Flying Objects, January 30, 1953.” While the composition of the “ONE Board” came to be partially identified, precisely what its purpose was could not be defined outside government circles. Assisted by agent Fred Durant, Strong advised eleven high-ranking officials, including a general, an admiral, an ambassador, a future CIA director (William Bundy), and “Dr. Edgar Hoover.”26