by Dan Wright
Among other materials in the same file were summary statements regarding the Tremonton, Utah, and Great Falls, Montana, films.
A West Coast civilian UFO investigations group likely became an early target of the aforementioned initiative to monitor such organizations. In a February 9, 1953, Office Memorandum to the Contact Division's assistant for operations, the (redacted) staffer was emphatic in citing the California Committee for Saucer Investigation (CCSI) for potential scrutiny. As evidence, he pointed to a German rocket scientist then working in the United States, Dr. Walter Riedel, who had spoken to someone about that civilian group; apparently, he was a member. Riedel mentioned that CCSI was planning a deliberate hoax in the Los Angeles area in order to track the volume of reporting witnesses and test variations in their accounts. The Air Force, he added, was already well aware of the group and its applied scientific methods; a copy of the UFO case reports Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) considered credible was always sent as a courtesy to Wright-Patterson AFB. Note: Was that subversive or patriotic?
The writer went on to say that Riedel showed interest in how the population of the USSR was reacting to UFO-sighting accounts—now publicized by Pravda after years of presumed official silence. The National Aeronautical Association had apparently advised Riedel not to maintain his CCSI membership.27
Apart from the Robertson connection early in the year, ufologically speaking 1953 was a fairly quiet year for the Central Intelligence Agency, evermore convincing officials there that its program of public education and debunking was working.
Still, enterprising analysts here and there engaged in chatter.
NICAP, Et Cetera
A January 4, 1953, internal document (not sourced) was titled “National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena.” The anonymous report writer assessed NICAP as loosely structured but efficient, with a newsletter, media relations, special reports, programs, and a localized investigative network. At the top, the organization consisted of an executive director and staff, an advisory board with ties to the scientific community, and an editorial review board with press connections. Regional staff maintained contact with local investigators.
The NICAP advisory board included recognized experts in physics, astronomy, anthropology, medicine, and psychology. A computer project to develop pattern analyses of the 15,000 raw reports on hand was underway.
The writer praised NICAP's policy for investigator acceptance and assignment as “a good one.” Individuals selected had to be at least 25 years old, with “formal training or experience in some form of science, or other specialized background applicable to systematic collection of information.” The United States was now divided into regions, with investigators in each.28
As of 1951, NICAP had 35 investigators nationally, a growing number, and an overall dues-paying membership of 3,500, which was expected to rise due to the spate of reported sightings in the news in 1952. As an organization, NICAP had an annual operating budget of $40,000.29
Without saying as much, the writer broadly implied that this group was worthy of careful watch, one that, at a time of cold-war strife, might stir up trouble.
Meanwhile, the Robertson-Durant reports continued to filter their way down the Agency ranks. On February 6, as an example, a bureau chief, Alan Warfield, mentioned them in a memo to fellow bureau heads titled “Unidentified Flying Objects.” He broadly outlined the Robertson Panel's findings and recommendations.30
A long skirmish for America's hearts and minds on the possibility of life elsewhere was only beginning. Backing the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI) was a plainly nationalistic administration in regard to both current and previous enemies. Hence, no “woo woo” speculation was permitted.
Tidying Up
On March 12, 1953, the CIA Intelligence Advisory Committee (IAC) sent a copy of the Robertson Panel Report's two-page summary, plus an accompanying two-page document, “Evidence Presented,” to a redacted source. The roster of panel members, associate members and interviewees was also included. The same materials were forwarded to the Secretary of Defense, the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and the National Security Resources Board. A handwritten note (sender and receiver redacted) related a phone call from a redacted source: “He said Mr. (redacted) would like to have you get someone to look over the material on the Scientific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects. There may be something of interest there which should be reported to the (redacted) deputies.”31
The following day, IAC Secretary Richard Drain enclosed the same materials with a letter to the Defense Secretary. Drain outlined the Robertson panel's conclusions, identified dangers to national security, and suggested ways to eliminate them. The CIA, he added, did not consider this subject primarily its concern but would assist in any action deemed advisable.32
On March 31, OSI's Fred Durant, the Robertson Panel recording secretary, sent a formal Office Memorandum to Philip Strong, OSI's Acting Deputy Assistant Director. Durant explained that the Agency's Office of Counter Intelligence (OCI) was no longer studying UFO reports and sought a place to send its files. OSI interest lay in the Air Branch of the Applied Science Division (ASD) and should continue to follow anomalous aerial developments through the summer months. He recommended that OCI, meanwhile, send its files to the ASD. Except for unusual events, ASD would destroy those files. All future OCI communications on UFOs would be sent to the ASD. In the event of a “future flap,” the ASD would be valuable for critical analysis by Durant or Strong.33
OSI Director Chadwell sent a letter to Dr. Samuel A. Goudsmit of the Brookhaven National Laboratory on April 7, 1953. He was responding to a March 26 “Dear Chad” from “Sam” letter in which Goudsmit remarked tartly:
When I spent those few days in your section last January, the file we studied contained one, or perhaps two, pamphlets from a crack-pot organization somewhere in the west. I am interested in following up this angle and, would like to get the name of that pamphlet and the address . . .
In reply, Chadwell identified the “crack-pot organization” as the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization, which published the APRO Bulletin, outlining civilian sighting investigations. On behalf of OSI, Chadwell expressed his appreciation for Goudsmit's previous help in that area and that he might call on him again.34
Having received a copy of the Robertson Report, on April 18 the head of the Federal Civil Defense Administration wrote to the secretary of the CIA Intelligence Advisory Committee to express FCDA's continued interest in the UFO subject. As an item for follow-up, on the 21st, IAC Secretary Drain indicated that FCDA Administrator Val Peterson suggested a formal conference for a thorough discussion. Drain referred the correspondence to OSI.35
In a memo for the record on the 23rd, OSI's Strong wrote that a meeting to include the FCDA and CIA to review the Robertson Panel findings would be held in the Virginia governor's office if he planned to attend, otherwise at OSI. Strong said H.P. Robertson would be there.36 In another memo for the record the following day, Strong indicated the meeting was set for the 30th. The governor would not be in attendance but three or four of his staff would be there.37
Perhaps as a consequence of that meeting with the FCDA and governor's staff, the accumulated data on UFOs would soon be transferred to new management within OSI. On May 27, 1953, OSI Director Chadwell wrote an Office Memorandum to Todos M. Odarenko, Chief of the Physics and Electronics (P&E) Division, the subject being “Unidentified Flying Objects.” Chadwell began without fanfare: “Responsibility for maintaining current knowledge of reports of sightings of unidentified flying objects is hereby assigned to your division.” Chadwell relatedly requested that the Applied Science Division (ASD) provide assistance “from a weapons and hardware standpoint.” He directed the P&E staff to interact with the Air Branch of ASD, where the “major files” were kept, and with the Operations Staff office, which held key documents and administrative papers.38 UFOs were now appropriately assigned, at least; staff attitudes notwith
standing, physics and electronics were central to the puzzle.
A month and change later, Odarenko responded to Chadwell. The assignment to take custody of such materials did not specify its priority, he mentioned prominently. Without asking per se, he was inquiring what that priority might be. Separately, the communication said, P&E staff, Air Force personnel, and the Scientific Review Board (called on by the CIA in 1952) had been contacted. Such a review would entail the need for two analysts plus clerical staff. Given the Board's findings of no direct threat to national security, the P&E division presumed “the project will be considered inactive.” Incoming material would be reviewed periodically to leave only compelling cases meeting the “unidentified” definition. Unless involving immediate national security, all material would be filed for future reference. This level of effort required two staff part-time plus a filing cabinet.39
Voices from Elsewhere
On the 13th of July, 1953, an IFDRB copied from the Stockholm daily included the proclamation, “Danish Defense Leaders Take Serious View of Flying Saucers.” Reports from trained observers and Danish Air Force radar of unknowns over Denmark and adjacent waters had led the military to suspect they originated from Soviet bases in the Arctic Ocean. The same week, an officer and seven others at Karup Air Field observed an aerial object basically resembling an aircraft but moving faster than anything known.40 The airfield had served as a refugee camp after World War II. With the creation of the Royal Danish Air Force in 1950, it was renamed Air Base Karup.41
More recently, the crew of a Norwegian anti-aircraft battery had observed an unknown at great height. A jet aircraft sent to investigate could not reach the unknown before it “disappeared at a terrific speed.” The Danish Defense Command remarked that the “flying saucer traffic” over Scandinavia was of immense aero-technical interest.42
Another IFDRB, distributed August 18, conveyed accounts of anomalies from newspapers in Athens, Greece; Brazzaville, Congo; and Tehran, Iran. The events outlined covered the previous months of March, April, and May.43
In one headline-grabbing story, a German engineer claimed that flying saucer plans, drawn up by Nazi engineers before World War II's end, had come to be in Soviet hands. The source claimed German saucer blueprints were already underway in 1941. By 1944, three experimental models were ready, one in disc shape. All could take off vertically and land in a confined space. After a three-month siege of the Germans' Breslau (now Wroclaw, Poland) facility at the war's conclusion, Soviets stole the plans on saucer construction.44
The same IFDRB related a November 22, 1952, account. A missionary and five companions in French Equatorial Africa had had a close encounter. Driving at night, they had witnessed four motionless discs overhead that lit up like suns when in motion but were silvery when stationary. Over 20 minutes the four moved about the area, seemingly performing tricks, then hovered momentarily before leaving non-uniformly. Later the six witnesses saw four objects forming a square at cloud level. One lit up vivid red and rose vertically; the other three joined it to form a square again. Luminous aerial objects were seen in the same time period above Homs, Syria, and the oil fields at Abadan in west-central Iran.45
In an undated (post-August 24, 1953) letter from the CIA's Legislative Counsel, John S. Warner, to Congressman Gordon H. Scherer, Warner responded to the concern of a constituent who had seen photos from Brazil of an alleged UFO, which had appeared on the morning Today Show with Dave Garroway. Warner stated that the photographer's processing of the film could not be independently verified and thus might have been faked. The inquirer to Scherer's office had a history of contacting officials on this subject. The Agency had nothing to add.46
Back to Robertson
Philip Strong, Deputy Assistant Director of OSI, wrote to Dr. Thornton Page of Johns Hopkins University, probably sometime in late August 1953. Dr. Page had been a member of the Robertson Panel. Strong advised him that recently the Air Force had requested declassification of the panel's two-page summary of conclusions so it could be shared with the press. In response, Dr. Robertson and the CIA had agreed to partially declassify the material—leaving out verbiage on debunking new sightings and monitoring civilian investigative groups, plus any mention of CIA involvement. Further, Strong went on, names of the Panel members could be withheld, but leaks might still occur. He asked Page to indicate approval or disapproval of such a partial release and whether his name could be used in it.47
In the weeks following, Strong repeated this letter-writing exercise, communicating with the remaining panel members. Ultimately, they all agreed to the proposed restricted release and to the publication of their names.
Donald Keyhoe versus the Company
In December 1953, Philip Strong and Todos Odarenko made more waves. First, in a strongly worded Office Memorandum to the OSI Assistant Director, Ralph Clark, Strong critiqued a popular book by Donald Keyhoe, a retired major in the US Marine Corps. The purpose of the book review was to ascertain any CIA security violations.
Keyhoe had been a USMC naval aviator. He wrote numerous aviation articles and fictional short stories for leading publications in the 1920s and 1930s. He also managed promotional tours for some aviation pioneers, in particular Charles Lindbergh. He returned to active duty in World War II, joining a naval aviation training division.48
Following the June 1947 Kenneth Arnold sighting, Keyhoe began to study the flying-saucer subject. Initially skeptical, he eventually became convinced that aerial phenomena were real. As their shapes, maneuvers, and speeds were apparently beyond the capacities of any nation, he determined that they had to be the products of alien technology. Approached by the editor of True, a popular men's magazine, Keyhoe wrote an article entitled “Flying Saucers Are Real,” which appeared in the January 1950 issue and caused a sensation. Captain Edward Ruppelt, the first head of the USAF Project Blue Book, subsequently carried forward a rumor floating across publishing houses that the True article was among the most widely read magazine articles in history.49
Keyhoe then expanded his article into a book, The Flying Saucers Are Real (1950), which sold over a half-million copies. He argued that the Air Force knew the UFOs were extraterrestrial but downplayed sighting reports to avoid public panic. Keyhoe proceeded to write several more books on the subject, most prominently Flying Saucers from Outer Space (1953).50
In 1956 Keyhoe would cofound the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), whose reputation was burnished by a board of directors that included several prominent figures in the sciences and technology. A year later he assumed the directorship. NICAP would be his platform from which to challenge officialdom.51
In his “Report on Book Entitled ‘Flying Saucers from Outer Space’,” Philip Strong decided the content was highly distorted, including many half-truths and inferences drawn by author Donald Keyhoe. Further, Albert Chop, a public information officer in the Air Force Reserve, was quoted extensively, claiming the Air Force deliberately concealed UFO-confirming positive conclusions. Claimed but unnamed sources had said the CIA instructed the Air Force to debunk the subject, state that it had ended all UFO investigations, then carry them on in secret.52
Further tightening the air seals against leaks, on December 16, Philip Strong issued a terse clarification to Operations staff on the subject of “Flying Saucers.” In a memo to the chief of the Operations staff, he declared:
In view of the fact that over-all substantive responsibility on the above subject has been assigned to the Physics and Electronics Division and action responsibility within that division assigned to Lt. Colonel Oder, Operations staff must coordinate any matter concerning FLYING SAUCERS with Colonel Oder or in his absence, with Dr. Odarenko.
Since the Agency's overall responsibility regarding this subject rested with the Physics and Electronics (P&E) Division, any matter concerning the subject was to be forwarded there.53
The next day, responding to a verbal request from OSI executives and likely also bearing on their r
eaction to the Keyhoe book, came a Memorandum from Dr. Todos Odarenko, Chief of the P&E Division, to Ralph Clark, OSI Assistant Director. This memo thoroughly explained the Division's UFO-related duties since May 27, when P&E assumed those tasks, as well as those of other principals in this matter. The P&E efforts heretofore had been confined to remaining aware of UFO activities by other agencies (notably USAF) and maintaining files.
Dr. Odarenko explained that Defense Department activities, such as they were, centered on OSI's Air Force counterpart. “The Air Force continues to maintain, but with apparently decreasing emphasis, its interest in UFOB's.” The USAF Directorate of Intelligence, he underlined, offered only cursory cognizance of the project in Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC), code named “Bluebook No. 10073.”54
Odarenko continued: “At ATIC the project is carried by one officer (Capt. Charles A. Hardin), one airman (A-10 Max O. Futch), and a secretary, operating as the Aerial Phenomena Section of the Electronics Branch, Technical Analysis Division. In spite of this limited staff, as well as several changes of project officer, the project records appear to be up to date. ATIC personnel no longer conduct field investigations of UFOB sightings.” Those, he clarified, would have to be by request of an Air Force intelligence officer—prominently from Air Defense Command (ADC) or Airways and Air Communications Service (AACS), whoever was nearer to the sighting.55
Bluebook staff performed a series of minor tasks relative to new reports:
Receiving and checking the incoming reports
Requesting additional field investigation, where necessary
Performing necessary checks against meteorological, astronomical, aircraft, and balloon data
Recording their findings and conclusions in a cross-referenced system by date, location, source, type of observation
