Quantcast
Channel: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena - scientific research
Viewing all 837 articles
Browse latest View live

UFO books by Australian authors

$
0
0
I was asked recently for a listing of UFO books by Australian authors. So, here it is. If any blog readers know of others, I would appreciate an email to keithbasterfield@yahoo.com.au in order that I may amend this list. Images are courtesy of Amazon Books, unless otherwise credited.

1965. "Flying Saucers Over Australia." James Holledge.



1967. "Flying Saucers Where Do They Come From?"Richard Tambling.



1969. "UFOs over the Southern Hemisphere." Michael Hervey.



1976. "UFOs: The American Scene." Michael Hervey.
1978. "UFOs: A Scientific Enigma." David Seargent.



1981. "UFOs: The Image Hypothesis." Keith Basterfield.



1983."UFOs: The Case for Scientific Myopia." Stan Seers.
1996. "Encounter." Kelly Cahill.



1996. "The Oz Files." Bill Chalker.



1996. "The Cosmic Conspiracy." Stan Deyo.



1996. "The Gosford Files." Bryan Dickeson and Moira McGhee.

http://independentnetuforesearchers.com.au/gosford-files/
1997. "UFOs: A Report on Australian Encounters." Keith Basterfield.



2002. "Awakening." Mary Rodwell.



2004. "Australian UFO:Through the Window of Time." Heather Gilroy and Rex Gilroy.
2005. "Hair of the Alien." Bill Chalker.



2007. "UFO Down-Under." Barry Taylor.



2011. "UFO History Keys." Bill Chalker.
2011. "The UFO Diaries." Martin Plowman.



2011. "Tasmania: A UFO History." Keith Roberts.

TUFOIC

2012. "Roswell Revealed." Sunrise Information Services.



2012 "My Awakening Part 1." Peter Slattery.
2012."My Awakening Part 2." Peter Slattery.
2012. "The History of Man."Peter Slattery.
2013. "Can UFOs Advance Science?" Sunrise Information Services.



2013. "Operation Starseed."Peter Slattery.
2014. "The Book of Shi-Ji." Peter Slattery.
2014. "The ET Contact Experience." Peter Slattery.
2014. "Breaking Free." Peter Slattery.
2016. "Contact Down Under." Moira McGhee.

http://independentnetuforesearchers.com.au/contact-down-under/
2016. "The New Human." Mary Rodwell.



2016. "Humalien." Jane Pooley.



2016. "Connect to your spirit/ET guide." Peter Slattery.
2017. "UFOs Down Under." Barry Watts.



2017. "The Alien Gene." Moira McGhee.

http://independentnetuforesearchers.com.au/the-alien-gene/
2017. "The Book of Shi-Ji 2." Peter Slattery.

'Reframing the debate.'

$
0
0
Introduction

I have been slowly reading a book titled 'UFOs: Reframing the Debate,' edited by Robbie Graham (White Crow Books, Hove, UK; ISBN 978-1-98677-023-3.)

Image courtesy of Amazon Books
The book is composed of 14 chapters, written by individual UAP researchers, and experiencers. The editor, inter alia, writes 'Each of the contributors in this volume is sharply aware of the futility of concluding. Instead, they offer strategies for understanding - understanding the phenomena, and understanding its social and cultural effects.' (p. xx.)


Issues highlighted by the contributors include

* The decreasing use of the scientific method

'This dismissal of science is encountered frequently among UFO zealots, who insist that their esoteric knowledge supersedes scientific methodology...' (p.7.)

'Modern ufology appears to have rejected science in favour of a more mystical and religious view.' (p.1.)

'...such subjective discourse has almost completely supplanted any rigorous attempts to study the subject with anything resembling scientific methodology." (p.1.)

* The non inclusion of data from high strangeness reports

'The close encounter witness is at first blindsided by something for which he or she has no previous framework, and which the mind tries furiously to stuff into a mental "filing box" during and soon after the event.' (p.193.)

'While plenty of cases superficially support the N&B/ETH view, its materialist foundations are shaken when confronted with the High Strangeness characteristics of a majority of UFO close encounters." (p.51.)  [N&B = nuts and bolts. KB.]

'One of the greater problems I see within modern UFO circles is the outright dismissal of high strangeness reports by investigators who subscribe to the Extraterrestrial (ETH) as the default explanation for cases that challenge conventional science.' (p.167.)

'...we need to be aware that these more complex accounts are not easy to categorise or share.' (p.29.)

* The circulation of incorrect information

'I contend that a great deal of information circulated around the UFO community - the vast majority- is simply incorrect or, at the least, unsubstantiated, while detrimentally accepted and promoted as common knowledge.' (p.47.)

* The debate about the value of personal stories

'[Speaking of UFO believers] 'Their experiences cannot be investigated as "ordinary" UFO reports...In effect, their experiences are not viable as data that can be considered in any scientific evaluation of the UFO phenomenon.' (p.15.)

'One such dynamic is that personal stories, interesting and entertaining as they may be, are often of little value to the professional research process.' (p.40.)



Suggested ways forward include

* Researchers need to educate themselves about the processes of human memory

'It would also be helpful if investigators encouraged one another to further educate themselves on such topics as memory, witness testimony and emotional trauma. ' (p.44.)

'Perhaps by looking within and at the human mind, our senses, and how we remember things, we can better calibrate our main instrument for measuring UFO encounters.' (p.207.)

'The value of personal stories is further questioned by the strides made in memory research. Qualified experts have demonstrated that memories are filled with errors.' (p.41.)

* Disband large UFO groups and work in smaller units

'Could the Roswell Slides Research Group serve as a model for future research and investigation of UFO cases?" (p.107.)

'To this end, perhaps large UFO groups should be disbanded, in favour of smaller, autonomous groups with a narrow research focus.' (p.192.)

* Gather data with no preconceptions

'Investigators should start with no preconceptions about what they are seeking. The gaol should be only to gather information from witnesses.' (p185.)

* Follow the data wherever it leads

'Reframing the debate includes taking advantage of such opportunities, following the trail of evidence to what logical conclusions it provides,  and acknowledging when physical evidence is either entirely absent or if investigators questionably failed to pursue it.' (p.45.)

'The study of UFOs and alien abductions has zero obligations to a N&B/ETH model. What it does  owe an obligation to is, to quote Alex Tsakiris, "follow the data wherever it leads."' (p.62.)

* Use better source material

'Work could further be legitimized by relying more heavily upon sources recognized as credible within the professional research community. These include such resources as authenticated documents, newspaper clippings, journals and similar media that offer valuable use as reference materials.' (p.44.)

* Look at high strangeness reports

'Currently, the testimonies of UFO witnesses that describe corresponding high-strange and paranormal events are often either ignored or met with ridicule from ufologists who would rather not deal with the more bizarre aspects of UFO reports, and by the professional skeptic organisations who are openly hostile to anything other then the Null hypothesis, i.e. it's all just swamp gas and Venus.' (p.169.)

* Ditch the use of hypnosis

'The time for experimenting with hypnotic regression is a memory enhancing tool of alien abduction is long gone..." (p.44.)

* Continue to use the scientific method

'Thus, the argument remains that scientific UFO research... is of utmost importance to the study of UFOs..." (p.65.)

'...I hope to instill in the mind of the readers that proper adherence to scientific methodology, and a reasonable, open-minded skepticism, will be of great benefit to the study of UFOs.' (p.74.)

*Recognise that mainstream media is entertainment

'In the click bait age, the mainstream media uses UFOs and their followings as entertainment like never before.' (p.82.)


My comments

On a personal level. I have for many years spoken of the need to secure original source material, and to follow the data wherever the end results lead. Many years ago, I foresaw the need to move from large, formal organisations to either work alone, or in a small team, and made this move. Today, I work by networking, across the globe.

Regarding high strangeness reports. I have indeed come across, documented, and published, (e.g. in the MUFON Journal; International UFO Reporter) such accounts. I have  worked with numerous individuals over time, to examine their highly personal experiences. This is long before the establishment of this blog in 2009, and why some blog readers might easily gain the impression that I have never studied these type of accounts. As a number of chapter authors indicate, exploring high strangeness reports takes time, and can be exhausting, both for experiencers and investigators.

My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that I agree with the chapter authors who urge us to study high strangeness reports, and document what they tell us. However, I also urge both investigators and experiencers to become familiar with current research on such topics as memory processes; the fantasy-prone personality; sleep paralysis; hypnagogic imagery, fugue states, and other similar psychological and physiological processes. For, just as 95% of incoming raw sightings turn out to have mundane explanations after intelligent investigation and analysis, I personally find that some high strangeness reports do indeed have explanations which lie in psychological processes. I believe that at the moment, this fact is insufficiently acknowledged, by both researchers and experiencers.

All in all, this book is an extremely welcome addition to the UAP literature. I would recommend it highly to anyone who has a serious interest in our mutual topic.

How to research the UFO phenomenon and stay sane

$
0
0
People have asked me how I have kept my interest alive across a 50 year time span of research?  I thought about this again recently and came up with a few ideas which I’d like to share with you.



Have some guiding principles

One of my main guiding principles has been, to simply 'follow the facts.' If a UAP case turns out to have a mundane explanation, then I say so! I believe that UAP investigators should weed out as many identified cases as possible, leaving only good quality “unknowns” to work with.

I have found this consistency of approach to be invaluable. It can however, lead to differences  of opinion with other UFO researchers who have a non-negotiable belief system.

One example of this, occurred after I appeared on an ABC television program, which discussed various medical issues. I suggested on the show that some UAP abductions have their roots in terms of 'sleep paralysis.' A well known Victorian UFO researcher took me to task for daring to suggest an alternative explanation to the 'Grays.' I had, after all, only based my opinion on personal research, while his views arose from armchair research. 

Another example, based on exhaustive research, was my suggestion that the 1988 Mundrabilla car encounter had an alternative non-extraterrestrial explanation. Some American researchers took a dim view of this suggestion, even though they had conducted no first hand investigations.



Tackle diverse research projects

The range of research projects which I have conducted over the years has included:

  • The possible application of the fantasy-prone personality, and hypnagogic imagery to UFO abductions. I had thought that support for the FPP hypothesis had declined, but an examination of seven studies conducted since the early nineties revealed three positive and four negative findings
  • I asked the question 'could reports of 'angel hair” falls be simply spiders’ web?' and found evidence to suggest that almost all reports are just that
  • I conducted the only comprehensive literature review ever undertaken on the subject of alien implants. This revealed that very little peer review research had been conducted
  • I took a long, hard look at the possible application of sleep paralysis to abductions, which made me conclude that most UAP researchers underestimate its relevance
  • A 12 month joint project with Melbourne based researcher Paul Dean, to collect and examine 12 months worth of Australian sightings.
All of these projects developed my knowledge in many areas; made me question various approaches and ended up with me publishing articles across the UAP literature for others to discuss and debate.

Read widely

I read a lot of different books and magazines, and browse the internet frequently. My reading covers diverse topics such as astronomy, biology, physics, the paranormal, mathematics and biographies to name just a few. I find this keeps my mind active. When reading I always try and link the information I come across to UAP research.

For example, I once read a book about the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A portion of a single page mentioned UAP research within the intelligence area of the Australian Department of Defence. This ultimately lead to the release of a formerly secret intelligence file on UAP. This file may now be viewed on  the National Archives of Australia website.



Don’t separate research into UFOs from research into the paranormal

In my opinion you shouldn’t just study UAP. UAP appear to be part of a much broader area of investigation which we label as the 'paranormal.' In my opinion, much is to be learnt by researching these two topics as one. For example, the after-effects of some UAP close encounters include a range of effects labelled paranormal, such as poltergeist activity.

Also, scientific studies on the topic of out-of-body experiences are relevant to abductions. Science has now been able to create OBEs on demand, by stimulating the human brain. It also has, in the laboratory, successfully demonstrated that one’s sense of self can be transferred to a point outside the body.

Take frequent breaks from research

I’ve taken a number of breaks from researching UAP. I think the longest was for four years. Breaks, particularly long ones, enabled me to escape the day to day routine of UAP investigations. This gave me time to reflect. It was during such breaks that I developed insights into how the fantasy-prone personality, and hypnagogic imagery may relate to UAP.

Like Kylie Minogue, Madonna and Lady Gaga, reinvent yourself from time to time

At various stages over 50 years of my interest, I have been:

  • One of the Co-ordinators for the Australian Centre for UFO Studies
  • Research Director for UFO Research SA Inc.


  • Founder of the Australian Centre for UFO Abduction Studies
  • Continental Director for the US Based Mutual UFO Network
  • Facilitator for Disclosure Australia.
Each of these roles brought me into contact with a range of different individuals, and taught me new skills.

Publish your research

I find no value in coming up with some valuable insights and then not telling anyone about them
I would urge you all to run your own website; make documentaries; publish your own blog, or write for UAP magazines.



Publishing opens up your work to peer review, which ensures debate and discussion. Speaking of publishing your work, if you’d like to see what I have published over the years,  then Google 'Keith Basterfield UFO.'

Don’t be afraid to respectfully disagree with other researchers, whoever they might be

David Jacobs is a US abduction researcher with some controversial viewpoints, some of which I have strongly disagreed with. I have debated some of his ideas in print. Likewise, back in the 1980’s and 90’s I found much to disagree with Whitley Strieber and documented my observations in print, e.g. The International UFO Reporter. 

Some time ago, my thoughts on former astronaut EdMitchell’s revelations about ETs, even made the pages of the Tehran, Iran daily newspaper!

I have outlined my views, in various places, on the inadequate research we have collectively undertaken on the UAP abduction phenomenon.Interestingly, some people in the US and UK have/are following up lines of research suggested, in part by me.

Long term blog readers, will also be aware that I proposed an alternate conventional hypothesis for the 6 April 1966 Westall, Victoria, Australia sighting. I pointed out that there is almost no hard data available. There is no analysis of reported ground traces. There is no evidence of radar detection of the object. There are no documents about the sighting to be found in any Australian government file. The witnesses' observations are not well documented from the era, e.g. there are no entries from a 1966 diary. Much of the shared information only came to light since around 2006. Researchers have failed to acknowledge that human memory is prone to errors. No government employees have come forward to say they were involved in a cover up of the incident. Even the legendary US researcher, James E McDonald, following a personal investigation of Westall, failed to promote it as an excellent example of UAP. 

Finally

You cannot retain a long term interest in any topic, without thinking that the subject of your study has some merit.

I would however, make a couple of general observations:

  • I think that examples of the 'true' or 'core' UAP are much rarer than most researchers think. At one stage in South Australia I led a group of investigators, who for three years examined several hundred local UFO reports, and found that 95% of them could be explained in mundane terms. Today if you look at large numbers of incoming reports, as listed on Australian groups’ websites only some 10% are said to be IFOs. I believe that if sufficient, open minded resources were given today to investigations, that the clear up rate would still be about 95%
  • I am still not convinced that the phenomenon has a simple explanation, such the extra-terrestrial hypothesis.

In conclusion, after 50 years of research, I still believe that the phenomenon contains genuine mystery, worthy of continued scientific study.

Westall research - this blog's contribution to the debate.

$
0
0
Introduction

From time to time, I receive comments from people, that they believe I have a negative approach to the subject of the 6 April 1966, mass sighting at Westall, Melbourne, Australia.

I inform such people that, like themselves, I have the right to my opinion as to the cause of the sighting that day. Unlike some individuals, I base my own opinion on having conducted research on the event. I was not there on the day, and ultimately, my opinion is based solely on what I have been able to find out, by communicating with Westall witnesses as long ago as the 1990's; by visiting the site, prior to the playground installation; by an examination of all the original source material I could locate; an examination of Australian government files; by looking for potential non-UFO explanations; by exploring topics such as memory recall in people; and applying all that I have learnt from many years of interviewing witnesses to sightings, all over Australia.

One of the few witness documents available from 1966 - image courtesy VFSRS

This blog's contribution to the Westall debate

Quite a few posts on this blog, have explored the Westall sighting. I have provided the following links for anyone who wishes to explore material relating to the event; much of which, you will not find anywhere else.

Photo by author

Blowing in the wind

Back in 2010, a series of posts appeared about the possibility that stratospheric balloons might cause some UAP events. Research found that certain Australian sightings did indeed, seem to have been caused in this way.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/cold-ufo-cases-stratospheric-balloons.html

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/cold-ufo-cases-stratospheric-balloons_16.html

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/cold-ufo-cases-stratospheric-balloons_19.html

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/cold-ufo-cases-stratospheric-balloons_20.html

In 2011, some research was then undertaken on one specific stratospheric balloon project in Australia.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/cold-cases-project-hibal.html

HIBAL launch - Image courtesy of National Archives of Australia

The Corona spy satellite program and 'broken arrows'

Later, when information surfaced about the US Corona spy satellite program, there was a reference by Stanton Friedman, about that program, and the possibility of an association with Australia.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/corona-spy-satellites-and-westall-link.html

An even more remote possibility, that a USAF aircraft (which were flying in Victoria at around that time) had accidentally lost an atomic bomb, was explored, given that Westall witnesses reported individuals with Geiger counters examining the area.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/more-speculation-on-westall.html

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/westall-and-possible-broken-arrow.html


Aircraft chasing UFOs over Victoria

In 2012, there was a tantalising report about another (1967) Victorian sighting involved multiple aircraft chasing UFOs. This second sighting had several common factors with the Westall incident, and just had to be explored. No one had previously published about this.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/westall-sequel.html

Later in 2012, a post looked at other potential explanations for Westall.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/westall-answer.html


Enter the former Australian Department of Supply

Westall researcher, Shane Ryan received information from the family of a former high up member of the former Department of Supply, which led Shane to understand that that employee knew the answer to what was seen at Westall.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/the-former-australian-department-of.html

Image courtesy of the author

Another 1966 mass sighting from an Australian school

Details about another April 1966 Australian school sighting was located, and was reported for the first time on this blog.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/another-australian-april-1966-school.html


Did radar pick up anything at Westall?

Researcher Paul Dean located an Australian government file concerning the reported observation of a UFO on radar, three days before Westall. No-one outside of the government prior to Paul, had seen this file.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/another-australian-april-1966-school.html

A search was then conducted for other 1966 Melbourne sightings involving radar.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/was-there-radar-observation-of-westall.html


A link between Westall and the Balwyn photograph?

The Balwyn, Melbourne photograph was taken on 2 April 1966, and many have speculated as to the possibility that here was a photograph of the object which was seen at Westall, four days later.

Image courtesy of Jim Kibel
http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/was-there-connection-between-westall.html

Some researchers had posited a possible connection between German flying saucer research and Westall. This was explored in a post:

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/german-scientists-flying-discs-and.html


The HIBAL hypothesis

Extensive work was undertaken to explore the hypothesis (simply an idea to be discussed, confirmed or rejected based on the evidence) that the Westall object(s) was/were associated with the HIBAL program.

HIBAL launch - Image courtesy of National Archives of Australia
http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/project-hibal-answer-to-westall-files.html

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/westall-hibal-further-information-you.html

Sighting on morning of Westall event - HIBAL balloons were filled using a long hose which remained with the balloon on the flight - image courtesy Shane Ryan

Please read all the original source material before speaking out!

As it was found that few people had ever read all the original source material on Westall, a comprehensive document setting out these sources was published.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/westall-read-original-documentation.html

Further material on HIBAL was published

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/hibal-westall-hypothesis-under-test.html

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/project-hibal-two-previously-unreleased.html

HIBAL launch  - image courtesy of National Archives of Australia

Further research uncovered details about the Victorian 1967 event which had similarities to Westall.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/a-westall-aside-previously-unknown.html

A copy of a 1966 audio recorded interview concerning an interview with Westall witness Andrew Greenwood was discover and reported upon.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/andrew-greenwood-and-westall-1966-audio.html

Paul Dean and I returned with  a detailed look at the 1966 Balwyn photograph.

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/return-to-balwyn.html

Finally, I took a look at the mystery of the missing Channel 9, Westall news film

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/westall-on-track-of-missing-channel-9.html


In summary

This blog, has since 2010, explored a variety of aspects of the Westall sighting; provided a summary searchable text of all the original source material; uncovered new data; clarified other pieces of  existing information, and put forward a testable non-UFO hypothesis for the event.  

I point out that there is almost no hard data available. There is no analysis of reported ground traces. There is no evidence of radar detection of the object. There are no documents about the sighting to be found in any Australian government file. The witnesses' observations are not well documented from the era, e.g. there are no entries from a 1966 diary. Much of the shared information only came to light since around 2006. Researchers have failed to acknowledge that human memory is prone to errors. No government employees have come forward to say they were involved in a cover up of the incident. Even the legendary US researcher, James E McDonald, following a personal investigation of Westall, never promoted it as an example of the 'core' phenomenon. 

J E McDonald's Westall interview notes with Andrew Greenwood 1967 - image courtesy Michael Swords

Westall - document located which shows there was a HIBAL launch on 5 April 1966.

$
0
0
Introduction

One non-UAP hypothesis put forward by myself, for the 6 April 1966 Westall incident, was that the object(s) sighted, was/were the payload and parachute of flight 292 of a joint research program, between the US Atomic Energy Commission and the Australian Department of Supply, called HIBAL.

Evidence of launch?

One of the counter-arguments put forward concerning this hypothesis, was that no documentary evidence could be produced to show that flight 292, scheduled for launch on 5 April 1966 from Mildura, Victoria, had even got off the ground.

I had located a tentative schedule of launches for HIBAL for April 1966, which showed four proposed flights on the 5th, 13th, 19th and 21st April. [Source: National Archives of Australia file series B411, control symbol 70/2919 part 4, page 50.]



However, I failed to locate any actual launch dates for April 1966. This caused Sydney based researcher Bill Chalker, to write on his Ozfiles blog dated 10 August 2014, 'No documents have been found that even confirm that the scheduled 5 April 1966 launch took place.' 

Yesterday, while browsing the Internet, I came across a document titled 'Health and Safety Laboratory. Fallout Program Quarterly Summary Report' dated January 1, 1968.


Upon examining the several hundred page document, I came across page 318, which provided a table showing that the April 1966  HIBAL launches had occurred on the 5th, 14th, 19th and 27th. Launches were often rescheduled from proposed dates due to adverse weather conditions. HIBAL flight 292, launched on the 5 April 1966, and reached a height of 27,000 metres (88,600 feet).


Successful flight

So, I am now able to state, that the proposed HIBAL flight 292, scheduled for launch on 5 April 1966, from Mildura, did launch successfully, the day before the Westall incident.

Question

The question then arises, could a HIBAL balloon, its payload and its 13 metre diameter parachute, which was launched from Mildura on 5 April 1966 still be airborne/close to landing, on 6 April 1966? Normally, a HIBAL flight was only hours in duration.

On the 29 August 1969, there were numerous reports of a 'flying saucer' being seen in Queensland. A RAAF aircraft located the object over Millmerran, (near Brisbane) Queensland, at 6,000 feet altitude. It turned out to be a HIBAL balloon, plus payload, plus parachute, which had been launched from Mildura on 25 August 1969. [Source: NAA file series A703, control symbol 580/1/1 part 12, pages 96 and 99.] Here then, was a three day old 'runaway' HIBAL balloon plus its associated equipment.

In addition, it is known that in August 1966, a HIBAL balloon came down on a chicken farm near Bendigo, Victoria, having travelled 90% of the way from Mildura to Melbourne. [Source: Interviews by this author of two members of the actual HIBAL launch crew. 2014.]

So, yes, it is theoretically possible that the flight 292 balloon, payload and parachute, launched on 5 April 1966 from Mildura, Victoria, was carried by the known northerly winds, to Melbourne where it was sighted on the 6 April 1966.

Conclusion

The debate as to whether or not, there was a successful HIBAL launch from Mildura, Victoria, on 5 April 1966 is over. There was such a launch.

It must be clearly stated that no documentary evidence has been located proving that HIBAL flight 292 was near Westall on 6 April 1966. However, there is the suggestion that a HIBAL balloon was seen 40 kms north of Westall on the morning of 6 April 1966, gained from the observation of two individuals who saw a 'flying saucer' trailing a long hose like a vacuum cleaner. [Source: Shane Ryan.] The significance of the trailing long hose, was that HIBAL balloons were filled with gas using a long hose. This hose, attached to the top of the balloon, stayed attached to the balloon throughout its flight. A remarkable coincidence that a 'flying saucer' should have such a hose!

On the other hand, no documentary evidence has been found, to show that HIBAL flight 292 wasn't near Westall on 6 April 1966.

Why did J Allen Hynek move to Scottsdale?

$
0
0
Background

In 1984, J Allen Hynek and his wife, moved from Chicago to Scottsdale, in the USA, to establish a new UFO research center. I have always been intrigued as to why he moved his research there? I decided to try and find out why, and the best source of information which I came across, comes from Jacques Vallee's 'Forbidden Science: Volume Three,'2016. Documentica Research, LLC. I will quote extensively from Vallee's book.

Image courtesy of Amazon Books
Spring Hill. Saturday 10 November 1984.

'Allen told us his new center was now duly established in  Scottsdale with the backing of wealthy Englishman Jeffery Kaye, a pro-Israeli businessman who maintains homes in three countries...Allen seems to have discovered a world of business contacts and big projects. Jeffery Kaye doesn't really intend to fund the center however. He is only providing an initial framework and startup funds. His idea is to launch a series of publications and film projects whose proceeds would support the organization, starting with a movie about Allen's life. John Fuller has been contracted to write it..."We need a real effort," Allen says, "with real investigations and translation of foreign cases." He speaks of spending two million dollars a year on such a project, but Mr Kaye will not provide that kind of cash.'

Hyde Street. Sunday 18 November 1984.

'An associate of Jeffery Kaye named Dr Glazer called me last week on Allen's behalf. He confirmed they were staring a publishing company and wanted to raise money for a docudrama on Hynek's life. He wants o enlist my help, because "your name would help us attract funding." He pressured me to drop everything I was doing and fly to Phoenix to see the project. Allen tells me that Glazer is a psychologist who sells his house to him in connection with a divorce.'

Hyde Street. Sunday 13 January 1985.

'Allen called yesterday, urging me to visit him in Scottsdale, perhaps in mid-February after my trip to New York. He warned me that I would get a formal letter from Dr Glazer, as Jeffery Kaye's business manager. "Don't let the formalities scare you."'

Scottsdale. Sunday 17 February 1985.

'Our third topic of morning discussion was his move to Phoenix. Allen told me it all came from a meeting he had with Tina, who inturn put him in touch with Jeffery Kaye, an English millionaire she had known for several years. Tina and Brian, who are involved in gold mining, knew Mr Kaye as a potential investor... Jules Glazer joined us, a tall, serious fellow. I liked him more than I expected, after some guarded comments I'd heard from Mimi. A practical businessman, he attacks the questions that Allen had avoided: would I lend my name to their center? Would I write books, give conferences for them? Would I help in fund-raising?...Besides, I thought Allen had clearly indicated that the Center was solidly financed. What about the backing by Mr Kaye, the English millionaire? Had Allen moved to Arizona only to find himself having to beg for support again?

Once he was gone I asked about Mr Kaye whom I had yet to meet. I was beginning to form certain ideas about him, however Mr Kaye's fortune was inherited from his father, the founder of a supermarket chain. Glazer spent six years with Jeffery in Monaco, helping manage the business, he now advises him in US investment: real estate, stocks, and private companies.

"Glazer jumped on the idea of ufology as a money-making operation when he saw the Meier photographs from Switzerland," said Tina. I winced. Allen said nothing.

"I miss something," I told them. "Wasn't Mr Kaye going to finance the center so you could do real research?"

"He does - in a way. he gives a thousand dollars a month to the center."

'How long does this deal last?"

"Until March."

"What happens after March?"

"He didn't commit to anything."

Tina Broke in: "the idea is that Mr Kaye is providing us with start-up money and that we will use his contacts with wealthy families here; he likes to take a hand in the research. Especially since the day he happened to be in the office while a television crew was filming Allen, and he ended up on the screen," she added with a wink.

Paris. Rue de la Clef. Friday 21 June 1985

'Allen told me that his financial backer, Mr Kaye, had come to Paris on the occasion of the GEPAN meeting. he is staying at the expensive Prince de Galles hotel, where he is inviting us for lunch tomorrow. It appears he is a strong backer of Israel, having helped finance Menachem Begin, among others, so there is an unexpected political angle to all this. Allen himself now feels he may have rushed a bit too fast to set up his new Center in Arizona under pressure from the fair Tina.

She had met Jeffery Kaye in Las Vegas, inspired his interest in ufology and suggested inviting Allen to Scottsdale. Once she had his approval she went to see Allen and sold him on the concept: "A multimillionaire from Moncao begs you to join him in solving the UFO problem: he pledges his support...All this was true, but only temporarily. Allen jumped without nailing down the long-term details...The purchase of Glazer's house was a fair deal, even if Kaye did little more than arranging a few partied and offering the use of a duplex he owns in Phoenix to house the new center...'

Paris. Rue de la Clef. Sunday 23 June 1985.

'Jeffery Kaye, whom I was meeting for the first time, appeared typically British, but without the easy, classy style of English aristocrats. He gave us a business card that introduced him as the proprietor of a Monaco based travel agency. I found this curious since he was supposed to have made his fortune with shopping centers. I instinctively mistrusted him. He also passed around pictures of his boat, registered in tax-free Guernsey Island.

The lunch started on a funny note with Kaye requesting some rose wine from the sommelier of the Prince de Galles, who must be used to such gaffes: Jeffery did not want to have to chose between red and white. Claude Poher, a great connoisseur winced but said nothing. To his right was Allen, dishevelled and tired, wearing a remarkable tie adorned with portraits of young women, reproductions of Renoir's grisettes. "Allen you are the last person on Earth wearing ties like that!" remarked Jeffery.

Allen spent much of his time trying to explain to his backer why contactee and abduction stories should be taken with scepticism. Yet Kaye is ready to invest in Meier's stories in Switzerland. With great solemnity, he even pulled out of his pocket, a purple rectangle "anodized with aluminium" that he handed around the table, claiming that this Alien-inspired artefact had medical benefits. It is even helping his old mother, who can barely walk. Embarrassed by the scene, Allen looked like someone who would love to dive under the table and disappear.

Kaye did confess he was having trouble raising money in Arizona...When Jeffery turned to Poher and asked him what he thought of Roswell and saucer crashes, Claude answered that he did not believe a word of the stories...

The same evening I had dinner with Simonne Servais at the Invalides. As soon as I mentioned Jeffery Kaye, "isn't he tied up with Israel?" she asked...'

Paris. Monday 24 June 1985.

'We had lunch with the whole group at Les Bouchons in Les Halles, after which Jeffery Kaye went away, to everyone's relief. Allen didn't appreciate the fact that Kaye had invited himself to the morning session, even proclaiming insolently, "Well, I want to know who all these people are..."

Before he left, Jeffery took me aside to tell me that a woman contactee had received a message that "the Frenchman and the Englishman must meet." He concluded the future of this research rested on the two of us, since Allen would soon pass from the scene, which left me very sad. I have no intention to work with Jeffery.

Hyde Street. Sunday 17 November 1985.

'Allen told me that CUFOS, from Chicago, had sent a sternly worded letter to Tina and Brian, forbidding them fro using Hynek's name in connection with their work. This saddened Allen, who gave Tina credit for bringing him to the freedom of Arizona, although he no longer wants to be associated with Jeffery Kaye.'

Phoenix. Friday 2 May 1986.

'I rediscovered Tina and Brian last night, and the friendship between us. They had distanced themselves from Jeffery and the English community in Scottsdale, an enclave of utter snobbishness. Jeffery's wife Susan has arrived from London on the wings of a powerful personal psychic tornado that sweeps everything around her, including Jeffery: now she plans a conference in London. Alan never understood why Jeffery didn't simply sign a check, and Jeffery never understood why Allen didn't come up with an action plan to solve the UFO problem in a few years.'

Wednesday 2 July 1986.

'Tina is an interesting woman, a former Chicago deputy sheriff, who became in turn in the commodities research, in the search fro sunken treasures, in gold mines, and in psychic research. It is during a stay in Las Vegas that she became interested in UFOs, when she met a man named Ed Slade. He took her to a secret room in his basement where he kept a collection of weapons and some jewels and icons from Russia.

Slade old her that he was a "former agent" who could fly to Russia whenever he wanted and bring back anything he likes. He assured Tina that the saucers existed, that the US government had captured some craft and their occupants: one of them was at Nellis Air Force Base (5) A collector of old share certificates, Slade shared this passion with Jules Glazer, who already served as Jeffrey's financial manager. However, Kaye long refused to meet with Slade. When he finally agreed he was fascinated by the man's brilliant conversation and the fact that he did have access to Nellis; however Jeffery never obtained access to the project that Slade had described to Tina.

Tina is intrigued by the fact that Slade doesn't seem to have a stable job; he would go to a table at a Las Vegas casino and quickly win a thousand dollars which he said was his way of drawing down a slary when he needed money. Slade has led Tina to believe he was a contacteee, showing her a scar on his neck to "prove" it. He also showed her supposedly classified documents about the government's' UFO secrets. Tina also mentioned to me that Glazer had written a dissertation on necrophilia.

I have understood certain things about Jeffery Kaye during this trip. I now believe he was sincere in his misguided efforts to help Allen. Jeffery simply doesn;t know how to establish a relationship with people except through money, which gives him control. This became obvious during a conversation with Timothy Good at the conference; before my lecture at Covent Gardens. Jeffery explained to Good his interest in the subject. He said he had approached Hynek as the one man he regarded as the primary authority but, he said, "no sooner was he under my...I mean no sooner was he in Arizona, that he discovered he had an advanced form of cancer."

An interesting slip of the tongue. "Under my..." What? My control? My influence?

Susan Kaye left Jeffery after 10 years of marriage, taking her two daughters with her. She is intelligent and vivacious and seems lost in a personal spiritual upheaval.'

Returning from Phoenix. Monday 15 December 1986.

'Jeffery Kaye's team, headed  up by Tina, has succeeded in pulling off their conference in Scottsdale, quite an event. The conference took place at the Scottsdale Center for the Arts, attended by fashionably dressed men and women, adorned by large blow-ups of Billy Meier's fake saucers and punctuated by media types and the occasional Navajo artist. Jeffery's newest girlfriend came over in a pastel dress...'

My comments on the above

1. Based on Vallee's account, it would appear that the sequence of events went as follows:

1. Tina Choate meets Ed Slade.
2. Slade tells Choate about captured UFOs and occupants.
3. Slade knew Glazer.
4. Glazer was Kaye's US financial manager.
5. Choate meets Kaye.
6. Kaye becomes interested.
7. Choate introduces Kaye to Hynek.

2. Tina was Tina Choate. Brian was Brian Myers. See this following newspaper article for an aside.


A second source

I checked a second recent source of information, namely Mark O'Connell's 2017 book, 'The Close Encounters Man.' (Harper Collins; New York.) O'Connell's opening piece about Hynek's move was:
'"Chicago ...is a hotbed of inertia" Hynek said to a Chicago Tribune reporter, in August 1984, to explain his and Mimi's move to Paradise valley, an affluent suburb of Phoenix, Arizona.' (p.332.)

Image courtesy of Amazon Books
'The Hyneks were living in, and operating CUFOS out of, a "spectacular hacienda in the sun" provided by a wealthy British benefactor named Geoffrey Kaye. The generous sponsor, whom Hynek had met through gold-mining entrepreneurs Tina Choate and Brian Myers, was ready to fund "a UFO research center without rival in the world,' and Hynek couldn't resist the lure.' (p.332.)

'The new center in Arizona would also supplant the amateur UFO groups that had made such a poor show of things with the Walton case.' (p.333.)

So, the above are the reasons cited by O'Connell, for Hynek's move from Chicago. However, by the end of 1985 in the International UFO Reporter, Hynek wrote "I am completely dissociated (and I mean completely) from the Phoenix operation...My connection with the International Center for UFO Research is null and void." (p.334.)

O'Connell quotes Brian Myers as saying "Geoffrey Kaye's funding never really dropped out. It was there," explained Myers. "It was only at the end, when Allen was getting ill...that Geoffrey's concern was 'Well, you know, how much further do I go with this, because Allen is obviously on the way out.' (p.336.)

'The true reason for the collapse in Arizona remains murky, with Vallee's version of events often clashing with that of Myers and Choate." (p.337.)

My comment on the above

Note that while Vallee refers to Jeffery Kaye, O'Connell refers to Geoffrey Kaye.

Westall - and the CSIRO

$
0
0

In a recent Facebook post, on the Westall Flying Saucer Incident Facebook page, Victorian researcher George Simpson made reference to an account where the CSIRO was reported to have removed soil from a location in Westall.  I had previously explored the UFO interest of one CSIRO scientist, who actually investigated the 6 April 1966 incident. Below I repost my 2015 blog post on this scientist.

Felician Andrzej Berson - the CSIRO - and his interest in UAP



Introduction:

There are scattered references, in the civilian UAP literature, to the interest of an individual named Dr. F A Berson, who worked for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research organisation (CSIRO). I thought it might be useful to bring these references together, hence this post.


Dr F A Berson
(Source: Garratt, J et al.  "Winds of Change." CSIRO publishing. 1999. Out of print.)

Biography:

Firstly, before investigating his interest in the subject of UAP, I present a biography which I found in an article "Clouds on the Horizon" written by Berson himself, which appeared in  volume 72, number 2, February 1991 of the Bulletin American Meteorological Society.

Berson decided to study meteorology and qualified for his doctorate in 1934; then worked at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute; followed by the Polish State Meteorological institute until 1939. Berson then moved to England where he joined the RAAF as a meteorologist, during the second world war.

In 1946, one of the items on his research list concerned cold fronts. After the war he accepted a post with the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Berson writes that at one point (about Carl-Gustav Rossby) "He appreciated the fact that I had imagination and was anything but institutionally inclined, he also enjoyed the eccentric behaviour I displayed on occasions.  p.208.)

In 1952 he "...applied to join the rapidly growing group of English wartime colleagues led by C H B Priestley forming the section (later Division) of Atmospheric Physics in the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) at Aspendale near Melbourne." (p.210.)

Between 1953 and 1974, when he retired, Berson worked at the CSIRO, and was known as Andgei to his colleagues. He researched cold fronts, Antarctic circulation; quasi-biennial oscillation; convective systems and interpreting radar echoes. During this time he worked for a period at the International Antarctic Analytical Center, and another period of time at the US Weather Bureau in Washington, DC. He also spent time at NCAR's National Hail Research Experiment at Boulder and Grover, Colorado in the US.


Ca. 1956:

According to Berson himself, in a letter, dated 28 November, 1966, to Robert Low of the famous Condon Committee, he became interested in the topic of UAP around 1956:

"It was in fact Mr Groodin who first got me interested in the subject. This was some ten years ago. I have since had one or two contacts in this matter, with Government departments, but have established closer contacts with a private agency in Victoria in an endeavour to find out what they were up to and whether scientific research was feasible."

According to Garratt, J; Angus, D and Holper P. (1999. "Winds of Change." CSIRO publishing, page 13,)  Ivan S Groodin was working for the CSIRO's Atmospheric Physics section from 1953, and was there at the time Berson joined that same section.

Ivan S Groodin in a group photograph.
(Source: "Winds of Change." CSIRO Publishing. 1999.)

March/April 1963:

Dr Berson investigated the 15 March 1963 Willow Grove, near Moe, Victoria, case. In an interview between Peter Norris of the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society, and the witness, Charles Brew; Brew says:

A. "...the CSIRO were here and number one question as far as they were concerned - he asked me did I get a headache. I said..."

Q. "What did the CSIRO man say? Incidentally, do you know his name? What's his name?"

A. "Er, Mr Berson. Yes, Mr Berson was his name."

Q. "And what did he say about the headache?"

A. Well, he said, 'that ties in with what our theory, we always had the impression that it was ..." (what would you say) he gave me the impression it was electro-magnetic or something to that effect - that's beyond me - but he said that would more than likely cause a headache  and it certainly took all day to get rid of it, anyhow. I know that."

Q. "What else did the CSIRO do?"

A. " Well, as I said, he took away samples of rock - they were very interested in that - because he said being a sort of an ironstone, it may have some attraction for it. And there is the reef as I said..."

Q. "How long after the sighting, did the CSIRO come down here?'

A. "They were here about 4 days after..."

On 8 April 1963, Dr Berson wrote to Sylvia Dutton of CAPIO, advising that:

"I visited Mr Brew in company of a friend of mine, but we did not take any rock samples. But I know that somebody else did. To obtain more information about the mentioned sighting, please contact the RAAF Department of Air, Canberra who are investigating this case." 

The following is from a letter from Berson to Robert Low, dated 11May 1967:

"...among them a sketch of the distribution of total magnetic intensity (as recorded by an AN/ASQ-1 airborne magnetometer installed in a DC3 aircraft) in a part of Gippsland surrounding the site of the Willow Grove sighting."

Later, in the same letter Berson suggested:

"Following a discussion with a geophysicist in the Antarctic Division of the Department of External Affairs I venture to suggest to you that a statistical investigation should be made on the following lines: place and/or time of (low level?) sightings of high credibility rating be correlated with magnetic data such as the three hourly geomagnetic k index at observatories and the world-wide kp index." 

Who was Berson's companion on his visit to Moe in 1963? Berson mentioned he was accompanied by a Mr Clarke. On the website for the Encyclopaedia of Australian Science http://www.eoas.info/P003236b.htm I found the following information:

Reginald Henry Clarke ( (1914-1990) joined the Bureau of meteorology in 1940, and then joined the CSIRO's Division of Atmospheric Physics at Aspendale in 1957. He retired in 1978 and passed away in 1990. One of his research interests was the subject of tornadoes.


Reg Clarke
(Source: "Winds of Change." CSIRO Publishing.1999.)


19 September 1963:

On Thursday 19 September 1963, Berson had his own sighting. I found the following information in an interview between Berson and James E McDonald dated 29 June 1967.  As far as I can ascertain he was at home in Mt Eliza, Melbourne at the time. He was with his son, when they noticed a cherry-red light in the sky. Far from being a point source of light, he estimated it had an angular size of one quarter of a degree, i.e. half the diameter of the full Moon.

The object appeared stationary, and there was no associated sound. He went inside the house to fetch binoculars, but when he came out, his son said that the object had formed two objects, and disappeared.

There was a newspaper report that an object was also reported from the Melbourne suburb of Dudley South at the same time. He checked the azimuth direction of his observation (it had been near a tree or similar object) and the track passed over Dudley South. He deduced that the object was not a balloon, or a hoax.

I found additional information on page 77 of the book by Michael Hervey, titled "UFOs over the Southern Hemisphere." (Click here.)

"On September 19, 1963, at approximately 8pm, the VFSRS received a telephone call from a man living at Mt Eliza. He and his family had watched an unusual object in the sky a little earlier that evening. The object, about 20 to 30 degrees above the horizon, appeared blood red  and was blinking on and off. It seemed larger than a star and made no sound. The object disappeared in a slightly easterly direction." 

"The Express" Newspaper of Wonthaggi, Victoria in its 26 September 1963 edition provided some other information. At 1845hrs South Dudley children at a playground saw an object. An orange ball was seen to the west. There was no sound. Tom Lymer reported "It was flashing on and off like an aeroplane light" but bigger and brighter. It was moving much slower than an aircraft. Suddenly flame shot out and it travelled at a tremendous speed. It was lost for a while then picked up to the south, hovering. Tom Ruby said that after hovering and still flashing on and off, it moved over the sea and disappeared. It was reported that television reception was affected.

The Australian Flying Saucer Review, May 1964, page 1 said that a John Waters, 17 saw two objects. "One appeared first, travelling in an area but not stopping, and the second object came over a little higher and followed the same trajectory." Mrs Sutton said that the Mt Eliza man's object was travelling in a south to south-east direction. Mrs Sutton checked with the RAAF, weather bureau and the Department of Civil Aviation and said that there were no balloons, kites, planes etc in the area at the time.

McDonald in his handwritten notes of interview with Berson wrote that the object was "Not blinking. Review is in error."


April 1966: The Westall incident:

In Ann Druffel's book on James E McDonald, "Firestorm" (click here) she wrote that

"Dr Berson had done his own investigation of the Westall High School sighting. He'd called Moorabbin airport also, but had been told he would have to call four separate companies in order to try to track down the source of the five Cessnas! He'd learned that students at Clayton school had also seen the object at the same time. he went to the Department of Air, but was given no information. There he was told by an aviation instructor, "We have a sub-chasing aircraft with very bright lights that can be misinterpreted."  The Australian officials were reaching as far afield for 'explanations' as project Blue Book."

Berson himself refers to this incident, in a letter to Robert Low dated 28 November 1966. In part it reads:

"On another occasion I established the fact that a similar D.A. team had appeared so quickly on the scene of a sighting made by a group of school children and a teacher in the vicinity of an aerodrome as to make one believe that they had some foreknowledge.The teaching staff was asked by the DA men to "play it down" and the sighting was promptly ridiculed, but quite independently another group of people had reported the unusual phenomenon from the opposite peripheral area of the aerodrome." 


July 1966:

An article titled "The Tully Nests: How freakish can whirlwinds be?" appeared in the Australian Flying Saucer Review, number 5, dated July 1966 pages 3-7. The article was "written by a member of VFSRS who has been connected with studies in atmospheric sciences." The references include an article by Reg Clarke. This may have been written by Berson.


May 1967:

In the McDonald archive section of Dr Michael Swords' digital file  collection, I found a letter dated 26 May 1967 to Dr Berson from James E McDonald. McDonald advised Berson that he was visiting Australia in June and July 1967. In part it read:

"I am now convinced it is a problem warranting greater increased scientific attention by a much larger group of workers...In going over one account of the Brew case, near Moe, Australia, I have noted that you are cited as a CSIRO investigator who looked into that interesting case. I should like very much to discuss that and any other Australian cases of which you have direct knowledge...I should like very much to speak to some of the CSIRO meteorologists about this entire problem...I might mention that I know...Priestley and Swinbank of your group."


June 1967:

Also in Swords' files is a letter dated 10 June 1967 from Sylvia Sutton, CAPIO to McDonald. In part it reads:

"The Chief purpose of this letter is to invite you to dine at my home...Dr Berson of the CSIRO, with whom you have been  corresponding, has become a good friend of my family...so I have invited him and his wife to join us. He was particularly pleased about this because he would have liked to arrange some social occasion at his own home at Mt Eliza but due to the travelling distance, this rather ruled it out..."

McDonald met Berson on a number of occasions whilst in Melbourne, Victoria.

In the Australian journal of James E McDonald I found an entry dated 29 June 1967:

"then to Berson office to see geomagnetic anomaly at Brew site, and interviewed Berson re his Sep 19, 1963 sighting. Met Eric Webb who's been interested in UFOs (?) for some time but not until few weeks back did Berson learn of that..."

Eric Webb also worked also worked for the CSIRO.


Eric Webb
(Source: "Winds of Change." CSIRO Publishing. 1999.)


Another McDonald entry dated 30 June 1967  read:

"Phoned Berson. He wants me back. Priestley back and quite interested."


July 1967:

Another entry dated 4 July 1967 reads: "Paul and Geoff drove me to the CSIRO, Aspendale, met Priestley and Deacn (?) and Dyer."


CSIRO files on UAP:

The National Archives of Australia holds two relevant CSIRO files. File series A9778, control symbol M1/F/31, date range 1952-1957 is titled "Flying Saucers."



File series A852, control symbol HM1/30 titled "Miscellaneous Enquiries - General - UFOs."



 Is there anything on these files about Berson's UAP interests, or indeed about that of Groodin? I failed to find anything, however there were three items of general interest:

1. A memo dated 26 June 1968 from the Department of External Affairs addressed to the Secretary, Prime Minister's department, Canberra cc'd to Dr D F Martyn. Officer in charge, Upper Atmospheric Section CSIRO, about the Condon committee in the USA. However, the Upper Atmospheric Section was in Camden, New South Wales and not Aspendale, Victoria.

2. In the period 1959 to at least 1965, a copy of UAP reports were sent to the CSIRO, from the Department of territories (Papua New Guinea). There is no mention of which section/division of the CSIRO they ultimately ended up with.

3. A memo from the Department of Air, to the CSIRO dated 28 November 1968 advised that:

"During the course of an investigation into the unusual sightings made by Mr A S Ricketts of Baccus Marsh, Victoria, it was learnt that a 'team of CSIIRO scientists" had visited him on 7th July 1966. This Department would be grateful for any information on this visit that could be of assistance in assessing the origin of Mr Rickett's sightings."

 On 5 December 1966 the CSIRO replied:

"I have made inquiries from several likely CSIRO Divisions, but with negative results."

RAAF file 580/1/1 Part 6, held by the National Archives of Australia reveals a detailed investigation report on multiple observations by Mr Ricketts. It included:

"Mr Ricketts had a visit from a team of CSIRO scientists who saw something but would not confirm that this that this was a UFO. Mr Rickett's would not divulge the names of the CSIRO scientists."

Westall - and James E McDonald's files

$
0
0
Background

The late US researcher James E McDonald visited Australia in 1967. While here, he interviewed dozens of Australians about their UAP sightings, both by phone and in person.

Recently, the attention of Melbourne researcher Paul Dean and myself, was drawn, by US researcher Brad Sparks, to the University of Arizona's special collection MS412, of papers which had been gathered by McDonald.

On the University's special collections website there appears a listing of the contents of McDonald's boxes of papers. Among the listing for box one, is  a folder, 'Australian Miscellaneous Sightings: Slides, Sullivan, Westall School sightings.'

I am not aware of anyone who has accessed this folder. Therefore, I submitted an application to the University of Arizona to obtain a copy of the contents of the folder. After paying their fee, and waiting a few days, I received a WeTransfer of the contents.

What is in this folder?

1. 16 July 1967. 'The Sun-Herald'Sydney, New South Wales newspaper. Possible sighting of a flying saucer by Maggie Tabberer and Pat Firman.

2. 8 pages of 'Summary of Unusual Aerial Sightings reported to the Department of Air Canberra' 1960-1965. Sent by Peter Norris of Melbourne.

3. Envelope addressed to McDonald from VFSRS.

4. 30 Aug 1967. 'Mercury'Hobart, Tasmania newspaper. 'UFOs seen over state.'
    30 Aug 1967. 'Advocate' Burnie, Tasmania newspaper. 'Three UFO sightings.'

5. 5 May 1967. 'Bairnsdale Advertiser'Bairnsdale, Victoria newspaper. An earthquake in Victoria.

6. 30 Aug 1967. 'Advertiser'Adelaide, South Australia newspaper. '"Space systems" may be watching us.'
    30 Aug 1967.'Examiner'Launceston, Tasmania newspaper. 'We are being watched.'
    30 Aug 1967 'The Mercury' Hobart, Tasmania newspaper. 'Scientist claims eyes from space may be watching.'

7. 25 Aug 1967. 'Advocate'  Burnie, Tasmania newspaper. 'UFOs seen by four.'
    30 Aug 1967. 'Telegraph' Sydney, New South Wales newspaper. 'Saucers.'

8. Envelope addressed to McDonald.

9. Letter dated 5 Sep 1967 to McDonald from Francis L Rose.

10. 4 pages re McDonald's appearance on ABC TV show.

11. 19 Mar 1967. 'Mail'Brisbane, Queensland newspaper. St George-Mitchell sighting.
      26 Mar 1967. 'Courier Mail' Brisbane, Queensland newspaper. 'Spotter in dark over 'saucer.''

12. 23 Mar 1967. 'Journal'Traralgon, Victoria newspaper. 'What is the noise?'
       11 Mar 1967 'Sunraysia Daily' Mildura, Victoria newspaper. 'What is it?

13. Undated newspaper 'We saw flying saucer over Hallam.'

14. 14 Nov 1963. 'Wonthaggi Express'''More see a UFO.'

15. 31 May 1963. '?' newspaper, Sydney. 'Flying saucers just 'poppycock.''
      30 May 1963. 'News' Adelaide, South Australia newspaper. 'Object in sky not a meteor.'
      30 May 1963. 'Mirror' Sydney, New South Wales 'Mystery light over Canberra.'

16. 31 May 1963. 'The Age' Melbourne, Victoria newspaper. 'Mystery object in Canberra sky.'
      30 May 1963. 'Telegraph' Brisbane, Queensland newspaper. 'A saucer sighted by scientists.'
      31 May 1963, 'The Sun' 'Canberra saucer was vampire jet.'

17. Ballarat Astronomical Society 1965 UFO conference.

18. 2 pages. 'Experiences with UFOs' by W H Sloane.

19. 3 pages. Ballarat observatory.

20. Program. Ballarat UFO conference 1965.

21. 29 Jun 1967. Letter from W H Sloane to McDonald.

22. 10 Jul 1967. ? re WRE.

23. 21 Jul 1965. 'Telegraph' Sydney, New South Wales newspaper. 'The thing on the beach.'

24. 24 Apr 1965. Letter to VFSRS from Len Langford re sighting in September 1962.

25. 13 Mar 1965. 'Sydney Morning Herald'Sydney, New South Wales newspaper. 'My flying saucer-Keith Hooper.'

26. Uncited newspaper. 'Moon object pics.' Iron Duke ship photographs.

27. 31 Dec 1965. Letter to Paul Norman from Observatory Adhara.

28. 28 Jun 1967. Letter to McDonald from Sydney radio station 2GB.

29. 7 Nov 1963. 'The Express' Wonthaggi, Victoria newspaper. Bread carter sighting.

30. UK Flying Saucer Review article, Jul-Aug 1966 re Westall.

31. 21 Apr 1966. 'The Dandenong Journal'article re Westall.

32. Sheet - hand written note. 'Westall School. Misc notes 5/20/67. Aust FSR no 5 p13 for Greenwood's account.

33. 14 Apr 1966. 'The Dandenong Journal' 'Flying saucer mystery.'

Notes

As can be seen, the folder contains information about miscellaneous Australian sightings, but nothing of significance about the 6 Apr 1966 Westall event. However, it should be noted that McDonald did conduct a face to face interview with Westall witness Andrew Greenwood. To read a detailed summary of this 1967 Greenwood interview, click here

To read detailed summaries of all the 1967 Australian witness interviews by McDonald, compiled by Sydney researcher Anthony Clarke and myself, click here.

The 2004 'tic - tac' UAP

$
0
0
Introduction

Much has been written on the Internet recently, about an incident which reportedly happened in November 2004; which resulted in an encounter between US Navy aviators and a 'tic - tac' shaped UAP. The story which has emerged, has a lengthy history, which many of the current Internet accounts don't cover. For my blog readers, I will attempt to provide as much information as is currently available.


Back in 2007

On 3 February 2007, on the Above Top Secret website, someone using the username 'thefinaltheory' (which I will abbreviate to TFT), on a thread titled 'Observations of an Actual UFO'posted about what seemed to be an intriguing incident.

TFT stated that an incident had occurred in 2005 when they were on board an aircraft carrier, based on the West coast of the USA, off the coast of Mexico. TFT mentioned that they worked in 'the computer field' and had access to 'the top secret network onboard.'

The incident was described as follows - at 2300 the ship went into 'security alert' and TFT asked others what was happening? The response was that there was a UFO above the ship. TFT then said they had logged on to the ship's network and that they found 'many videos and powerpoint briefs' written reports and message traffic about the incident. TFT burned these to disk which was subsequently misplaced. TFT referred to the video as being taken from a cockpit camera, was black and white, and showed altitude, pilot's 'nickname' and other data. The UAP was floating stationary at 30,000 feet. It was disk shaped. The pilot tried to get a lock on it but couldn't. The UAP moved in a half circle upward and paused. There was a bright flash and it disappeared from sight.

Discussion then ensued in subsequent posts, questioning the veracity of TFT and the details which had been provided.

On 4 February 2007 TFT announced that 'I have the video and documents as I have previously described,' but asked that the ATS thread be erased before he proceeded further. TFT was apparently concerned over the possibility of being tracked down.

An ATS moderator entered the picture and 'trashed' the thread, but revealed that the initial two posts of this thread, allegedly from TFT and another individual came from the same IP address. Later this moderator 'untrashed' the thread, which can still be read in 2017. However, they did close the thread at that point.

Later on 4 February 2007, another ATS thread was commenced, titled 'Fighter jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal.'TFT posted the first piece and announced that 'The video you are about to see...' There is a click 'here' to view the video but today if you click the link you are advised that  www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/f4.mpg is not to be found on the server.

This thread then contains an item titled 'recall of an event log of a ship of the US Navy fleet' which sets out the alleged incident. From further comments, it appears that a number of individuals were then able to access the video, view it and comment on it.

Later on 4 February 2007, UK researcher Isaac Koi posted, and pointed out that the video was similar to one created by Australian film maker Chris Kenworthy in 2006, which was not genuine. Koi also pointed out that the link given was part of a German website which was related to film making. In conclusion, Koi said that 'Pending release of the promised further 'files,' this video should be tentatively identified as an attempted hoax on ATS by members of the 'Vision unlimited' group of German student film makers.'

Much discussion ensued. Some posts supported the hoax hypothesis, while others wanted to see the further 'files.' TFT went on to say that 'I have four versions of the video...the "full" version is about twice the length of this...The video does reside on a German server for security...'

On 5 February 2007, and later, an individual using the username 'Willard856' who stated that they were in the Royal Australian Air Force, pointed out a number of facts, such as that the video was not of a Heads Up Display but in fact a Digital Display Indicator; and went on to provide details about the data shown on the video display.

The debate as to hoax or not, swung back and forwards, but on 10 February 2007 a moderator banned three accounts for hoaxing, including TFT. On 13 February 2007, another user 'Cometa2' posted an 'event summary' which was apparently supplied by TFT.

This second thread had no further posts until 23 October 2017 when Isaac Koi, asked if anyone from the 2007 time posts ever did get additional information from TFT? Other posters added the fact that Chris Mellon, on Tom Delonge's 'To the Stars Academy' launch announcement video, had provided details about a 2004 incident involving the Nimitz battle group off the coast of California, which sounded exactly like what was being described and shown in the two, 2007 ATS threads.


Forward to March 2015

On 14 March 2015, an article appeared on the FighterSweep.com website. The text of which I reproduce below. My take on the acronyms are:

WSO = Weapons Systems Officer
HMCS = Helmet Mounted Cueing System
BFM = Basic Fighter Maneuvers
CAP = Combat Air Patrol
STT = Single Target Track
EA = Electronic Attack
RWS = Range While Search
FLIR = Forward Looking Infra Red.

RWS shows multiple targets within the radar scan. STT provides accurate tracking of a single target.

'A good buddy of mine and former squadron mate, Dave "Sex" Fravor, has one of the most bizarre aviation stories of all time. It is a story that stretches credibility, so I'll start off building up Dave's bona fides.

For what it's worth, I know him personally - very well. We flew A-6s together for a cruise back in the Dark Ages before he matriculated into the Hornet world. He's a funny guy. Smart and sharp witted, with a typical fighter pilot's overestimation of his skills. (he'd read the SHB article and assured me his way was way better than anything Nasty could do. I called B.S. - pretty standard.) In the air, though, Dave was all business, as professional as it gets.

It's easy to get a sense of who and what he is because the squadron was featured on the 10-part miniseries Carrier that aired on PBS. You get an excellent and accurate impression of him from his screen time as Commanding Officer of VFA-41. On the morning of 14 November 2004, Dave and his WSO launched into the clear blue Southern California sky about a hundred miles southwest of San Diego. Their Call Sign was FASTEAGLE 01. His wingman and WSO launched just after them in FASTEAGLE 02. They climbed overhead the ship and rendezvoused in normal fashion before setting off to their assigned work area in the open ocean south of USS Nimitz. Normal day, normal ops for the pre-deployment work up cycle they were in the middle of.

The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group had been on station for a few weeks already, working to integrate the operations of the carrier with her various support ships, including the Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruiser USS Princeton. As far as Dave was concerned, it was a standard day in a normal work up cycle. Another step in the long journey in preparing the ships of the Strike Group and the planes of the Air Wing to work harmoniously for their upcoming combat deployment.

What Dave didn't know was for the past several days, Princeton had been picking up some bizarre returns on their Death Star - worthy SPY-1 radar. On several occasions beginning 10 November, the Fire Control Officer and the extremely experienced Fire Control Senior Officer had detected multiple returns descending from far above the radar's scan volume - somewhere higher than 80,000 ft. The targets, dubbed Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs), would drop from above 80K to hover roughly 50 feet off the water in a matter of seconds.

Always over the same spot, a Lat/Long about 30NM off the coast of Baja, roughly 70nm southwest of Tijuana. At the time, the SPY-1 was the most sophisticated and powerful tactical radar on the planet. With it, they were able to track these AAV's while they descended, hovered and then zipped away at speeds, turn rates and acceleration faster than any known friendly or threat aircraft. Impossibly fast. 

Once the Air Wing's planes arrived aboard Nimitz, the Fire Control team on Princeton saw an opportunity to use those assets and eyeballs to help solve the AAV mystery.

At the same time FASTEAGLE flight was wrapping up its scheduled training, the CO of Marine Hornet squadron VMFA-232, Lieutenant Colonel "Cheeks" Kurth was completing a post-maintenance check flight not too far away. He was the first fast-mover contacted by Princeton. The communication was strange and intriguing. He was asked to investigate an unidentified airborne contact. This wasn't a terribly unusual request while a Strike Group was in transit or deployed far from home waters, but it was more than a little strange practically in sight of the San Diego Homeport. To add to the unusual communications, he was queried as to what ordnance he had on board. "None."

While Princeton was communicating with Cheeks, they were also attempting to hand off their AAV contact to the Air Wing's E-2C Hawkeye, also airborne at the time. The crew from VAW-117 had been providing intercept control for FASTEAGLE flight during their training. Princeton now wanted the E-2 to guide the Super Hornets to an intercept with the AAV contact, currently hovering over their favourite spot, but now about 20,000 feet over the ocean.

The AAV returns had not been strong enough to show up on the E-2's broad sweep, but once they focussed their radar on the coordinates Princeton directed them towards, they managed a faint contact. The radar returns from the contact weren't enough to generate a target track however, so Princeton cut the E-2 from control and contacted FASTEAGLE directly. Though he was unable to lock up the AAVs, the E-2 controller remained on frequency and listened to the entire ensuing evolution.

As Cheeks approached the spot he was being vectored to, Princeton advised him to stay above 10K as the section of Super Hornets was approaching the target. His radar picked up the FASTEAGLE two ship, but no other contacts. A moment later Princeton directed him to 'skip it' and return to the ship. Since he was so  close he decided to fly over the action and sneak a  peek.

The sea was calm, almost glassy smooth and it was late morning on a beautiful SoCal day. Perfect conditions. As Cheeks flew over the spot he saw a disturbance on the surface of the ocean. A round section of turbulent water about 50-100 meters in diameter. It was the only area and type of what he called "whitewater" describing that it looked as if there was something below the surface like a shoal or what he'd heard a ship sinking rapidly would look like.

He overflew the disturbance and circled back in the direction of Nimitz without ever seeing what caused the water to froth. As he turned away, which happened to be the moment  the Super Hornets converged on the location, the whitewater cleared and the ocean surface returned to its smooth state. The spot of the previous disturbance was completely indiscernible.

A few thousand feet below him, Dave had gone through a similar surreal experience of being asked by Princeton if the FASTEAGLE jets were carrying any ordnance. Dave's baffled WSO reported that all they had were two captive-carry training missiles. They were given bearing and range vectors to a set of coordinates and told to investigate an unknown aerial contact over that spot.

With no further information on the contact, they descended to the low 20's and scanned with radar, picking nothing up. Neither plane in this flight was carrying a FLIR pod, which limited the type of sensors they could search with; but, both planes were brand new - in Dave's words, "They still had that new car smell." The APG-73 radars were both new and had performed perfectly during the previous hour's training. Yet the screens from both planes were clean all the way to the point Princeton called "Merge plot!"

All four aircrew were eyes out from this point forward. The first unusual indication Dave picked up was the area of whitewater on the surface that Cheeks was looking at over his shoulder as he flew away. He remembers thinking it was about the size of a 737 and maybe the contact they had been vectored on had been an airliner that had just crashed. He maneuvered his F-18 lower to get a better look. As he descended through about 20K he was startled by the sight of a white object that was moving about just over the frothing water. It was all white, featureless, oblong and making minor lateral movements while staying at a consistent low altitude over the disk of turbulent water.

Dave put FASTEAGLE 02 into high cover passing through about 15K and she and her WSO witnessed the events from a perfect vantage point. Dave continued his dive lower towards the object, now also attempting to slave the radar through his HMCS to achieve a short range lock. No luck. His intention was to pass the object close aboard at about 350 kts, but as he got closer he noticed that the AAV had oriented one of its skinny ends towards him, as if, in his words, "It had just noticed us" and it was now pointing at them.

The AAV then began to rise from its hover. The object, which he would later describe as a white tic-tac, rose in right 2-circle flow about a mile cross-circle from Dave's Hornet. BFM instincts took over and Dave dug nose-low to cut across the bottom of the circle. As he was looking at the AAV and pulling his nose up to bear, he tried again to slave his radar via the HMCS. Again, the APG-73 was unable to lock on the white, fighter-sized flying object now just a couple of thousand feet away and closing.

All through these maneuvers, Dave's WSO was broadcasting the real-time events of the intercept to Princeton. The radar operators in the E-2 listened on the secure net to what sounded like one of the hundreds of intercepts they had heard over the years. With the notable exception that the aircrew's voices were more stressed and the verbiage to ID the target was unlike anything they had heard before.

In his debrief comments, Dave, his WSO, and the two other crews stated the object had initially been hovering like a Harrier. They described it as uniformly white, about 46 feet long (roughly fighter sized), having a discernible midline horizontal axis (like a fuselage) but having no visible windows, nacelles, wings or propulsion systems.

As Dave was pulling for nose-on and trying to get a dogfight lock with his radar, the AAV tightened its turn, "lift vector on, then aft" as Dave described, passing behind his tail and accelerated away at multi-mach speed. Dave immediately queried Princeton for a snap-vector but the SPY-1 radar had also lost contact. The first calls from Princeton were "picture clean." A few minutes later Princeton came back with, "You're not going to believe this, it's at your CAP."Princeton had picked up the AAV hovering at 24K at the assigned Lat/Long Dave had used earlier during training as his orbiting point.

Though low on gas, the FASTEAGLE flight swung through the CAP position to try and pick up the AAV again. They saw nothing more on their way back to Nimitz. Even the 100 meter circle of turbulent water had disappeared. That spot was now indistinguishable from the rest of the sea's surface. Asked later, Dave reported that he had not seen anything on or below the surface that may have caused the turbulent circle of water. It had existed when they had first visually acquired the tic-tac, then was gone when they circled back a few minutes later.

Back on Nimitz after recovery, the four crew headed down to the paraloft to remove their gear. The next four crews from VFA-41 were getting dressed for their training mission to the same area, using the same assigned Lat/Longs as CAP points. Dave and his crew members passed on what they had seen to the new guys and reminded them to get tape if they could.

By the time the new crew launched, rendezvoused and checked in with the E-2 for control, it was early afternoon; 1500. The planes separated, with one heading to that same southern CAP location. They were cruising along at 20K and 300kts, max endurance. Again the jet, radar and also, this time, the FLIR were spanking new and operating perfectly.

The WSO first picked up a contact on the radar around 30nm away while it was operating in the RWS scan mode. He checked the coordinates and it was indeed hovering over their precise CAP point. He attempted several STT locks, to no avail. Later, in the debrief, he explained that he had multiple telltale cues of EA.

The target aspect on the track file was turning through 360 degrees along with some other distinct, jamming indications. In the less precise scan mode, the return indicated that the object was, in the WSO's words, "A few thousand feet below us. Around 15-20K - but hovering stationary." The only movement was generated by the closure of the fighter to the CAP location.

The WSO resorted to the FLIR pod on board, slaving it to the weak track the RWS mode had been able to generate. He recorded the following sequence to the on-board recorder. Using the IR mode, he was able to lock onto the AAV. It showed up on his screen and on tape as a white object in a black background hovering with no known means. The IR camera did not detect roiling hot gasses blasting from below the AAV, as they would with a Harrier or a helicopter. It was simply hanging in midair. He switched to the TV mode and was able to again lock the FLIR onto the object while still trying, with no luck, to get a STT track on the radar. As he watched it, the AAV moved out of his screen to the left so suddenly it almost seemed to disappear. On the tape, when it is slowed down, the object accelerated out of the field of view with shocking speed. The WSO was not able to reacquire the AAV either in RWS or with the FLIR.

Somehow the tape made its way to YouTube. A few years after the incident, when first telling me the story, Dave pointed me to the link. It was unremarkable without the background information. But folded into context it was amazing,especially the slow-mo of the dot accelerating out of screen. For years I told the story to friends and showed them the video as punctuation. However, last month when I called Dave to refresh my memory before sitting down to write this bizarre encounter, he informed me that the video had been removed from YouTube. He told me that a government agency with a three letter identifier had recently conducted an investigation into the AAV;s and had exhaustively interviewed all parties involved.

All of the seven flight crew, including 6 aircrew from VFA-41 and Cheeks from VMFA-232. The Fire Control Officer and Senior Chief from Princeton, and the radar operator on the EC-2. They even queried the crew of the USS Louisville, a Los Angeles Fast-Attack submarine that was in the area as part of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group who reported there were no unidentified sonar contacts or strange underwater noises that day.

I'm not sure what to make of these events. I've loved the story since first listening because it is so crazy. I had never given aliens or UFOs much thought. It was a waste of my CPU power to mull a question like that. If they wanted to make contact, they would. If they wanted to observe from a distance, then they would be impossible to discern given the assumed high technology required to visit.

But now I was faced with credible witnesses. Not crackpots wearing foil hats but people I knew and people who were from my world. There were multiple, corroborating platforms that detected the AAVs using varied sensors. And, of course, the eight eyeballs that actually got a visual on the white tic-tac as Dave maneuvered to merge with it. He doesn't have to be a stranger to you either. Watch him on the PBS series, Carrier, and generate your own opinion of his professionalism and sanity. Then send me your best design for an aluminium foil hat...

About the author


Paco Chierici flew A-6E Intruders and F-14A Tomcats during his 10 year active duty career. He flew the F-5 Tiger II for a further 10 years as a Bandit concurrent with his employment as a commercial pilot. Paco is also the creator and producer of the award winning naval aviation documentary Speed and Angels. Paco has written articles for various international and domestic magazines as well as regular contributions to FighterSweep. He is currently revising the first draft of his debut novel, a naval aviation thriller. Paco has the standard panoply of medals and ribbons but his proudest accomplishment is the Top Nugget award for landing grades from his first deployment.'


 On to 2017

The incident is in the process of being investigated by the Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy. They have so far detailed the following information on their Face Book page.

Firstly, on 21 October 2017 they posted:

I am going to tell you about a Navy-UFO encounter that deserves a congressional investigation to determine if this happened or not. I am going to create three posts related to a recent UFO event that occurred in November of 2004 and involved the Navy’s Carrier Strike Group 11 off the southwest coast of California. This will be the first post and it will include the information that I initially obtained on the incident. If after reading these three posts you are reasonably convinced that this event happened then I will ask you to join me in a letter-writing campaign to a congressional subcommittee requesting that they ask for a debriefing of the incident from the Navy. Please share this FB site with anyone that you know who would be interested. #F18UFO #UFO

I was first told of this UFO incident in July of 2016 by an individual who was involved in the investigation of this event. He told me that the incident had been partially leaked to the internet, so that I could begin my investigation without involving my friend. Knowing a few of the key words I was able to locate the leaked story here: https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/
(Ignore the UFO photos in the article as those are just add-ons by the author for effect and are not related to the actual event.) What attracted me to this story was that it was not on a typical UFO site but was found on a site authored by a formal naval aviator and who predominately writes about naval aviator stories, not UFOs. So he had no UFO agenda to push. And the author went out of his way to establish the excellent background of the commanding officer of the F-18s known as the Black Aces. The story was full of “navy talk” and I spent considerable time deciphering that WSO = weapons system officer, SPY1 = phased array radar, E-2C Hawkeye = type of airborne early warning aircraft, BFM = basic fighter maneuvers, etc. Once I had read the full story, I felt that there was a strong likelihood that the event my friend had directed me to had actually occurred.

I next began online investigations to verify the identity of the individuals in the story and I found that those officers were all legitimate and had served in the Navy during that time. I searched additional websites for clues to this event. First, I found a Navy Event Summary document that had been leaked to the internet by an unknown source that mentioned this event. The document had much of the same information as was provided in the naval aviator’s story: dates and locations match up; USS Princeton detects objects on radar and dispatches the F18s; F18s don’t find a radar target but detect the object visually; F18s engage the unknown; and F18s are outmatched by the unknowns. I then ran the Navy Event Summary document by a retired naval officer and he indicated that the document looked legitimate in terms of its format. A copy of this summary document can be found here:https://drive.google.com/…/0By-yCcE3UvHcSlg0YlhyaGYyd…/view…
My friend who had originally told me about this case indicated that there had been video taken of the object and that it had been released to the internet several years ago and then was later removed. A copy of that video was obtained using the WayBack machine which is an internet site that maintains historical website data. The video is taken in the infra-red and depicts a hot object in the video cross-hairs for about 75 seconds before the object rapidly moves out of the video frame and towards the left. The altitude shown on the video matches the approximate altitude of the jets and the shape of the object in the video matches the pilots’ descriptions. A copy of this video can be found here: https://drive.google.com/…/0B61eOLiwJH1SWVIzZnNVc0taR…/view…
Of these three documents, the one that I find the strongest is the story by the naval aviator. The Navy Event Summary and the F-18 video support the story but more was needed. The question in my mind then became---could I support this information from another source. In December of 2016 I submitted nine FOIAs to various departments of the Navy and Marines to try and verify this event. In Part II of this series, I will share the information on the FOIAs that I submitted.

Secondly, on 25 October 2017 they wrote:
Part II Remember---please share this post. #F18UFO #UFO
In December 2016 I submitted nine different Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Navy and the Marines in an effort to establish whether the information on the UFO encounter that I discussed in Part I was real. Here is a link to one of the actual FOIA requests for those that like to see the details: https://drive.google.com/…/0By-yCcE3UvHcbFJTRWgyYi0tR…/view…
 Notice that I never used the term “UFO” in the request as this lessens the likelihood of success because of the negative connotations with the use of that word. This type of FOIA request was made for five different Navy assets that were involved in this incident; a nuclear aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz; a guided missile cruiser, the USS Princeton; an F-18 part of a Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-232); two to four F-18 Super Hornets from a Navy Fighter Attack Squadron (VFA-41); and a carrier based airborne early warning aircraft (an E-2C from VAW-117). Requests were sent to Naval Intelligence, Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Marines Pacific, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Naval Research, Naval Surface Forces in the Pacific, Naval Air Warfare Center, Naval Facilities, Naval Sea Systems Command, and Naval History.
By April of 2017 I had received replies on all nine of my requests for information. In every case the Navy replied that they had no information responsive to my request. I appealed two of what I considered the most important of the nine FOIAs to the Navy’s Judge Advocate General (JAG). The first appeal came back denied. In the second appeal I pointed out to the Navy JAG officers that another appeal denial would would indicate that on November 14, 2004, that they had no records on five different Navy assets. I copied my senators and congressman on my appeal. This time I had success. Although the Navy again indicated that they could find no documents, this time they provided me emails with some very interesting information that establishes the encounter with the unknown craft did occur.
Remember in Part I of this story that the F-18 pilot referred to the objects encountered as resembling the oval candy known as tic tacs. JAG provided me an email they received from a Marine Lieutenant Colonel that began as follows: “I am definitely aware of the ‘flying tic tac’! We were aboard the USS Nimitz attached to CVW-11. The CO of VFA-41, CDR Fravor had the video footage on his ATFLIR and several pilots in VMFA-232 saw the video.” Bingo! Not only did this event happen, the video was witnessed by a number of Navy and Marine officers. Is the video the same one that was leaked to the internet? We can’t know for certain but I think if the Navy has done their due diligence then they still have a copy of that video.
And then a second email was provided to me by JAG from a Marine Major. In that email he states, “MAG-11 (Marine Air Group 11) Operations should have a Point of Contact at the archive to facilitate recovery of these files.” This clearly indicates that the Major would expect the Marine archival group to have copies of these records. And would it not be reasonable to expect that the Navy would have the records archived of such an extraordinary event!
In total, I have the names of nine different Marine and Navy officers who either participated in the encounter with the unknown craft or have direct knowledge of the event. I will again appeal for the actual case files but the only way to really get to the bottom of this mystery is to ask a Congressional subcommittee to get involved. In Part 3 I will give you step by step instructions on how you can help petition your congressman. Please share this story with others on Facebook.





.
That then, is the sum total public information that I am aware of. The investigation is ongoing. 




Westall - a dissenting view

$
0
0
Introduction

We continue to hear references to the 6 April 1966, Westall school incident, in a variety of media outlets. Unfortunately, for us, these outlets, are simply using the event for their own gain. In almost all such instances, this is simply a matter of ratings and entertainment. UFOs are very newsworthy for this purpose. 

In my opinion, continuing to try and raise the profile of the incident, via radio, television, podcasts, newspapers, and websites, in the hope of officially confirming the nature of the incident, is doomed to failure. 

The year’s long search, for official Australian government documentary proof, has been unsuccessful. In addition, no one from the Australian Department of Defence (Army, Navy, and Air Force); ASIO, or any other government department has ever come forward to confirm what happened at Westall that day. These negative facts continue to fuel a ‘conspiracy’ perspective, when they may merely indicate, that there is no such ‘evidence.’ Indeed, I note that under the main title for the Westall66 documentary are the words ‘a forty-four year conspiracy.’ Suggestions of this nature do not help.

Closure

I have been told that Westall ‘witnesses’ need closure on what actually happened. However, all I see from my viewpoint, is frustrated individuals becoming even more frustrated and angry, e.g. the reactions on the Westall Flying Saucer Incident Facebook page to blog posts by myself on the HIBAL hypothesis (an idea to be debated); and to Paul Dean’s recent piece about Hazel Edwards’ testimony.

What is a ‘witness?'

I note the Facebook debate about what constitutes a ‘witness.’  Perhaps a better term would be ‘eye witness,’ someone who saw an unusual object. Then, there are other individuals who have knowledge relevant to an incident. Here, I would suggest, we might find people who an ‘eye witness’ told their story to (preferably at the time.) Police forces rely on such individuals to confirm the account of an ‘eye witness.’

Publish all available information

On the publicly available information (and if anyone has any addition information, please publish it for us all to debate and discuss) on the Westall incident, there is still much confusion as to basic pieces of data, e.g. (a) how many objects were present at around 10.20am that morning, or were subsequently present; and (b) the precise location of physical traces.  

There is no official Australian (or American) government information, and no Commonwealth government official has come forward to tell us what happened that day.  These facts need to be continually kept in mind, not summarily dismissed.

Large numbers of ‘eye witnesses’ do not necessarily increase the probability that something really unusual occurred that day. If you take a look at literature on ‘mass hysteria’ events at schools, you will get an overview of the difference between what was said by students/staff, to have happened, and what can be forensically reconstructed as having taken place, in these kind of events 

In summary


If after all these years of trying to get to the bottom of this incident, we haven’t succeeded; then perhaps it is time to let go. To close down the Yahoo Groups and Facebook Westall pages, and move on to other more profitable areas of UFO research. Offer closure to ‘eye witnesses’ by stop talking about the incident. Otherwise, I see we are simply in for years more, of the same circle.

Australian UAP from earlier years

$
0
0
Background

From time to time, I am contacted by individuals who tell me of UAP sightings from earlier years. Other people send me newspaper accounts of such events. These are all most welcome, as they add to our knowledge of previously unreported observations. This post describes two such recently submitted items.

Sighting from the destroyer 'Anzac'

A long time friend of mine, who lives in Tasmania, sent me a clipping from'The Advocate'newspaper, Tasmania, dated 21 October 2017, and titled 'Possible Experience of UFO.'

This 'Letter to the Editor' read:

'Growing up I didn't believe in aliens, but that belief changed in a flash.

In the 1970's I was sitting out on deck of the destroyer Anzac just after sunrise, getting fresh air before duty. We were heading to a destination in the South Pacific, doing about 18 knots.

The sea was as smooth as glass and no-one else was on deck. A strange feeling suddenly came over me. I looked up and above the funnel was a shimmering mass the size of a medium car, making no sound. It looked like it was generating great power.

Image courtesy www.navy.gov.au/hmas-anzac-ii
I stood up and it shot away at great speed in long zig-zag motion, just above sea level, towards the horizon. From that day I knew we were not alone in the Universe.'

The letter was signed Leon Forrest, Burnie. I have referred a copy of the letter to Phil Polden, TUFOIC, Tasmania for his information and comparison with anything in the TUFOIC records.

An Internet check revealed that in 1961 the 'Anzac' was refurbished as a training vessel, and remained in service until 1974, and was eventually scrapped in 1975. This indicates that the sighting may be dated between 1970 and 1974. The ship sailed between Australia, Papua New Guinea,and various ports in the South Pacific on training missions.

An unusual encounter near Murray Bridge, South Australia

I received an email from an individual describing an encounter near Murray Bridge, South Australia. 

'The night was on a Saturday. When I was travelling along Jervois road towards Murray Bridge. Approximately 11 kms south of Murray Bridge. I observed a UFO stationary over the river Murray. This would have been about ninety meters above the water. I stopped my car. When a friend of mine drove past. I wanted him to also observe what I had seen, so proceeded to try to chase him down. However after travelling after him for about a km rethought, about what I had seen  and that I would have to chase him for a considerable distance to catch him. 

So I returned to where I had seen The UFO. On arrival at the site the vehicle had disappeared. Because of a hill being in between me and the river. I am unsure if the craft had descended below the level of sight, behind the hill down toward the surface of the river or departed from the area. On reflection I now believe they would have been going to collect water from the river.

The vessel was very big. With no noise that was discernable from my location. The size was something that particularly struck attention. It would have been larger than a normal AFL football field. The shape being that of flying saucers,with one inverted above the other. Around the outer circumference were a number of orange lights. Since that time I have observed photos of nuclear reactor core. I now believe the orange lights were in fact nuclear reactor cores from memory I recall there would have been about eight on the side of the craft that was visible from where I observed it. The craft would have weighed many thousands of tonnes,had it been constructed of earthly materials. However it appeared weightless.sitting absolutely stationary. 

I proceeded to the location of the Murray  Bridge Police station to report what I had seen. The Officer taking my statement was taking the whole thing a bloody joke  so I walked out and  have never mentioned the incident to anyone since that time.

I believe this craft would be able to travel through space at speed that would certainly make interstellar travel a very real possibility. We are not alone. These beings have nothing to fear from us. Our fastest rockets are snails in comparison to this craft. The speed of light and beyond.'

Another Murray Bridge sighting in July 1967

I found this a fascinating observation, and made more remarkable in that I already had details of a 5 July 1967 sighting from near Murray Bridge. I found details of this second event in the RAAF UAP files - file series A703, control symbol 580/1/1 part 8, page 178, and following.  This may be summarised as follows:

On 5 July 1967 at 0057hrs local time, a Mr P P Langford of Robby's Aerial Services was travelling on the main Murray-Bridge to Karoonda Road, and was about 5 miles NNE of Murray Bridge at the time.

It was a clear night sky, but there was heavy ground fog.

Suddenly the vehicle's radio became full of static, increased in intensity and became a high pitched whine. He turned the radio off. About 100-150 yards later the vehicle's motor simply stopped. The ignition key was still in the on position, but the dashboard warning lights, i.e. oil, temperature etc came on.

NAA file series A703 control symbol 580/1/1 Part 8

Langford then reported noticing a distinct break in the fog where stars were visible in the sky. A large, dark shadow was visible above the road and between two bands of fog, at a height estimated as 60 feet. Above this shadow, which he estimated to be ten feet thick, was a greyish-blue glow.

By the time Langford got out of the vehicle to investigate, both the shadow and the light had gone. There had been no associated sound at all. The witness got back into his vehicle, tried the ignition switch and the motor started. Turning on the radio he found that the static had gone.

If any blog readers can add further details to either of the above events, I would be most grateful. 

Westall, the Department of Supply and Mr 'X'

$
0
0
Background

In a Facebook post dated 10 November 2017, and titled 'The troubled Public Servant,' Westall researcher Shane Ryan, reported that in 2010 he was contacted by a woman with some inside knowledge about the 1966 Westall, Melbourne incident, gained from her father.

In the post, Shane gave details of the contents of a number of emails from the woman (one from 2010, one from 2012) and her brother (one from 2012). The 2012 emails concerned the HIBAL hypothesis, but the important email is the 2010 one from the daughter, of the person I am choosing to refer to as Mr 'X.'

I have decided to annotate her words, rather than addressing points raised at the end of her text.

The email

'I am writing to you because I hadn't realised there were so many other witnesses to an event that my father was involved with in 1966. My father was the Assistant Controller of Aircraft, Weapons and Guided Missiles with the Department of Supply in Melbourne.

1. Shane found a Department of Supply Bulletin, in the National Library of Australia which confirmed that Mr X was indeed the Assistant Controller of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply in August 1967. We have not been able to confirm his position on 6 April 1966, the date of the Westall incident.

' He was a brilliant intellectual, Dux of High School, First class honours in Engineering and a science degree in Electronics all in 3 years. I mention this because he was not a fool, or someone who would dream up what he saw.

2. A check of the National Archives of Australia revealed Mr X's war records, which indicate he was an Engineer.

'I do not know how he was involved in the sighting of the object. He was, however told (by someone senior to him) that if he were to speak of this incident to anyone, he would lose his job.

3. A search of the Internet reveals that the immediate senior of the Assistant Controller of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply was in fact the Controller, of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply. On 6 April 1966, this was one Ian Bowman Fleming. He held the position between 1958-1967. Fleming was the director of the project which produced Australia's first unmanned target aircraft, Jindivik. Unfortunately, we are unable to seek any knowledge about Westall from Fleming as he passed away in 1993.

'He used to say that knew what he saw, he was very angry that this event was not seen as an opportunity. He was intimidated on a regular basis about what he saw by other officials and told that a person in his position could not be taken seriously if he were to speak of it. He was a respected point of contact for the Americans, French and Italians as they were all in the market for selling us their aircraft.

4. Here then, is an intriguing statement: 'this event was not seen as an opportunity.' One possible interpretation was a UFO was involved, with a potential opportunity to learn about advanced propulsion systems.

'I knew about the object he saw from very early on in the event, and I was also told not to speak of it to my school friends, teachers or anyone.

5. Earlier Mr X's daughter wrote: 'I do not know how he was involved in the sighting of the object.' Here she states: 'I knew about the object he saw.'  These appear to be contradictory statements. Did he see the object, or simply know of the incident? Was he at Westall that day? We will perhaps never know.

'I was 10 and after my father said we were not to speak of it, my mother continued to talk to me, mostly because of the torment my father appeared to be going through over this incident.

'My father came to work for the Department of Supply after he was approached for this position while manager of Civil Aviation in Sydney. He held this position from 1960-1968 then continued on in the position in Canberra until his early death in 1970.

6. Neither Shane nor I have been able to independently verify that Mr X held the position of Assistant Controller of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply between 1960-1968. We did however confirm that according to the 1966 Sands and McDougall directory, Mr X lived in Melbourne in 1966 and then via the electoral rolls confirmed he lived in Canberra in 1969 (the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply moved to Canberra in December 1968 according to the Canberra Times newspaper of 27 December 1968 page 8.)

 'There may be some information to be found at Department of Supply. I'm so pleased to know there really was substance to what my father saw and I wish he were here today to know there were many others who felt as he did. He did a lot of secret work during the WW2 so he was very good at maintaining security for the good of the nation.'

In summary

The research by Shane and I indicates that Mr X lived in Melbourne in 1966; was the Assistant Controller of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply in August 1967; was an engineer, and moved to Canberra in December 1968. Unfortunately, neither Mr or Mrs X are alive today to directly discuss his knowledge.

I understand from Shane that he has had no contact with Mr X's daughter or son since 2012.

What do I make of all the above? It is no doubt a fascinating story, but it is hearsay. A clinical definition of hearsay is 'the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.'

Although I am aware of the identity of Mr X; and his son and daughter; out of courtesy to Shane Ryan, my research hands are tied. However, I would urge Shane to attempt to recontact both the son and daughter and see if any additional information may have come to light since 2012.

Update

In a Facebook post dated 12 November 2017, Shane provided us all with additional information.

'In December 2012 some months after receiving an email from him, I was telephoned out of the blue by the son of the Department of Supply senior officer. He was calling on a mobile from a McDonald's in rural Queensland. I think now that he was checking me out over the phone as much as anything. However, he wanted me to know that as senior, and as sceptical, a public servant as his father definitely was, he was profoundly affected by what had happened at Westall.

He was of the opinion that his father had been at Westall as part of the response to the event. He even recalled the floor number of the building his father worked at in Canberra, which had some connection with D-Branch - which was a code for ASIO. Because of the son's work with Australian Federal Police intelligence, he explained that there was still some sensitivities for him in relation to all of this. He promised to call back with (sic) 48 hours...and I am still waiting for that call.'

My comments:

Now, let me say at the outset, that all of the above may be true, however a number of questions arise to which we currently do not have answers.

1. How did Shane know that the individual calling was Mr X's son?
2. How did Shane know that the call came from a McDonald's in rural Queensland? One can only surmise it was because the individual calling him, told him this?
3. Did the individual inform Shane of the floor number of the building in Canberra? Was Shane ever able to confirm this was the location of ASIO in Canberra in 1966?
4. I can understand that it would not have been possible for Shane to confirm the individual's statement about working for the Australian Federal Police. But, did the individual offer to produce any documentation to support this claim?

I appreciate, that for some individuals reading this blog, my insistence on fact checking and verifying information supplied, may well annoy them. However, think on this, we are being told that there was a government involvement and coverup in the Westall incident - a big story - surely this should cross checked in fine detail?

Additional material:

For a look at the work on a circular aircraft for the RAAF, by Squadron Leader Gordon Waller in 1966 click here.

For a look at an earlier post about ASIO and Australian UFO groups, click here.

For a detailed look at the involvement of the former Australian government Department of Supply, click here,  and here. 

Westall, the Department of Supply and Mr 'X' - a short part two

$
0
0
Background

In a previous post I discussed what we know of a tantilising story from the son and daughter of a high official in the former Australian Department of Supply, in relation to his knowledge of the 6 April 1966 Westall incident.

New material

Over my years of searching government archive material held by such agencies as the National Archives of Australia (NAA) and the National Library of Australia (NLA) I have learnt that these organisations are constantly making new material available. I thought it would be worth my while, spending some time, doing yet another search for any further material on Mr 'X.' This search proved to be very fruitful.

I now have found new material which:

1. Provides his University results from the years 1930-1934, when he attended University in Sydney and completed both a Bachelor's degree in Engineering (1st class honours) and a Bachelor of Science degree (2nd class honours.)

2. Gives a photograph of him in 1935. In order to ascertain whether or not anyone could deduce the identity of Mr X from this photograph, I used a number of web based reverse image sites to check if it is possible to determine the source of this image and thus reveal his identity. I was unable to find Mr X's real name from this image, and this is why I provide the photograph here. If you use "copy image address" you will only get "Capture_Photo_1935.JPG."



3. Advises that he was appointed as an Engineer in the Postmaster General's Department in 1937.

4. Shows that he moved to the Department of Civil Aviation in 1946, and became a Senior Airways Engineer.

All of this is consistent with the account of his career as conveyed in 2010 by his daughter.

5. I have also found some leads concerning positions within the general area of what became the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics area of the Department of Supply in 1967. In 1963 it appears to have been titled Aircraft and Guided Weapons Supply Branch, Department of Supply. Unfortunately, the archive material for this era, is currently not yet available. I have submitted a request to be advised when this material becomes publicly available. Hopefully, this will confirm the position within the Department of Supply which Mr X held on 6 April 1966.

I wish to thank my Sydney research associate, who wishes to remain anonymous, for giving me the idea to look in a particular part of the Australian government archives, where I located this new information.

If, perchance, Mr X's daughter or son reads this, I would appreciate if they would get in direct contact with me at keithbasterfield@yahoo.com.au.

Committee members of the VFSRS/VUFORS : 1959 - 1972

$
0
0
Introduction

Between 1959 and 1972, there were over thirty individuals who served on the committee of the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society/ Victorian UFO Research Society. In this post I identify these individuals and the committee positions which they held, and provide information about a number of them which will be new to most blog readers. 

Some individuals such as Peter Norris; Paul Norman and Judith Magee, played a major role in the development of the society during these years. Others came and went. Sadly, I am aware of a number of such people as Judith Magee, William (Bill) Stapleton, and Paul Norman who are deceased.

Judith Mary Magee



Committee, Dec 1959 – Nov 1962; Vice President  & Programs Officer, May 1964 – Dec 1965; Secretary, Dec 1966 – Dec 1967; Vice President, Oct 1968 – Dec 1972.

‘Vice President: Mrs Judith Magee has been a member of the V.F.S.R.S. since 1958 and a committee member since 1959. She completed a secretarial course at Brighton Technical School and worked in a Melbourne radio station and bank prior to joining the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service in March 1944. After demobilisation in 1946 she joined Australian National Airways as an air hostess and in 1947 became the only woman finalist in the Sun flying scholarship. Since her marriage in 1948 she has worked as a diathermy operator, mannequin and saleswoman.

Mrs Magee believes that flying saucer research should take a ‘middle-of-the-road’ attitude and be accurately presented to the public in a factual manner.’

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer Review No 4, Dec 1965.]

Magee wrote a number of articles for magazines, including:

‘”Nests” and “Landing pads.” AFSR No 2, Jul 1970, pp 12-15.

‘Are the UFOnauts gradually revealing their presence?’ AFSR Vol 1, Mar 1970, pp 8,9 & 14.

‘UFO activity along the NE coast of Australia.’ Flying Saucer Review (FSR) Vol 11 No 5 p14.

‘Queensland again.’ FSR. 1966. Vol 12 No 2, p26.

‘UFO over the Mooraduc Road.” FSR 1972. Vol 18 No 6 p6.

Paul Norman

Investigations & Sightings Officer, May 1964; Public Relations Officer, May 1965- Dec 1970; Public Relations Officer & Sightings Investigations Officer, Feb 1972. Public Relations Officer, Dec 1972.

‘Public Relations Officer, Mr Paul Norman was born and educated in the United States. With the exception of six years in the U.S. Navy and a short period as a Publisher’s Representative, he served in various positions up to Hydro-Electric Power Project Superintendent with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and is Charge Engineer in Thermal-Electric Stations.

He has been interested in the U.F.O. phenomenon since 1953, after observing one of the mystery objects hover over a power station in Middle Tennessee. His interest was intensified when Major Keyhoe was cut off the C.B.S. Coast to Coast Television network, while trying to tell American people about U.F.O. investigations and a few moments later an Air Force spokesman stood before millions of TV viewers and said “You Air Force would not withhold the facts.” At that time, Mr Norman joined the fight to end the policy of public deception.’

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer Review No 7, Dec 1967.]



Paul Norman had interactions in the USA. According to Ann Druffel's book 'Firestorm' (2002) about the late professor James E McDonald, ‘Paul Norman corresponded with McDonald shortly after McDonald's public entry into the field, and the two exchanged UFO reports and other material. In early May 1967 Paul Norman came to the states to visit relatives and made arrangements to visit McDonald in Tucson. Norman first visited Allen Hynek and Vallee in Chicago, principally to discuss a couple of UFOs which had been taken by reliable witnesses in Australia, then went on to Boulder, Colorado where he met with some of the staff of the Condon committee…for Condon’s staff had staff also had interest in cases worldwide.

Norman brought key Australian cases with him, discussed them in an eight hour meeting, and let the staff photocopy them. The next day, a Saturday, he discussed the cases for another ten hours with Dr David Saunders, a psychologist on Condon’s staff, then he went on to Tucson.’

Norman instigated the visit to Australia, in 1967, of Professor James E McDonald. Norman and other VFSRS committee members arranged for McDonald to interview a number of witnesses to Australian sightings. For summaries of these Australian McDonald interviews, click here. 

Norman wrote a number of magazine articles during the period 1959-1972. Included amongst these were the following:

‘The Condon Report in Bits and Pieces.’ AFSRS Vol 1, Mar 1970 (Vic) pp 2, 3 & 19.

‘A fierce new look at Unidentified Flying Objects.’ AFSRS Vol 2, Oct 1964 pp 15-18.

‘The electro-magnetic effect of the UFO.’ AFSRS Vol 4, Dec 1965, pp 3-5.

‘UFOs and the mystery signals from outer space.’ AFSR No 8, Oct 1968, pp 2-3.

‘Gravity powered objects.’ FSR 1965, Vol 11, No 2, p20.

Norman investigated a number of Australian cases, including: Burkes Flat (1966); Frankston (1972); Eaton Ridge (1965); Zanthus (1968,) including numerous Victorian sightings. He forwarded Australian sightings onto NICAP in the USA, some of which appeared in the NICAP ‘UFO Investigator.’

Peter E Norris

President 1959 - 1972.

'Mr Peter E Norris, LL.B has headed this society since its foundation in 1957. He was born in 1932, educated at Wesley College and graduated Bachelor of Law from Melbourne University in 1958.

He is an elected councillor of the City of Chelsea and a member of at least six other civic bodies in that City.

The V.F.S.R.S. has much for which to thank Mr Norris whose skills in manoeuvring the society through the difficulties inherent in such groups has shown intelligent leadership which has done much to gain the respect of the people and made the subject of Flying Saucers respectable.’

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer review No 3, May 1965.]

Norris was an APRO representative, and numerous articles appeared in the APRO Bulletin, which were based on material submitted by Norris.

Peter Norris, Geoff Rumpf and Ray Mountford conducted a field investigation of the 10 March 1961, Albury, NSW sighting. [AFSR No 5, Jul 1961, pp 1-2.] 

Geoffrey S Rumpf



Librarian, Dec 1959; Investigations & Sightings Officer, May 1964; Sightings Investigations Officer, May 1965 – Jul 1966; Vice President & Sightings Investigations Officer, Dec 1966.

‘Vice president and Sightings Investigations Mr Rumpf has been a member of V.F.S.R.S. since the inaugural meeting in February 1957. He was the society’s first librarian and is the society’s first sightings investigations officer. He was educated at Scotch College, Melbourne and has worked at the University of Melbourne as a research assistant and has been employed in many fields of selling.
He is currently employed as a Publisher’s Representative. During the last six years he has travelled extensively overseas. Mr Rumpf is active in the sport of pistol shooting and is president of the Mountain District Pistol Club.’

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer Review No 6, Dec 1966.]

Rumpf investigated a number of Victorian sightings including Hallam (1967.)

Sylvia Suttton



Secretary, 1961 – Dec 1965.

‘Secretary: Mrs Sylvia Sutton joined the V.F.S.R.S. in 1959 and became secretary in 1961. In 1965 she was appointed secretary of the federation Commonwealth Aerial Phenomena Investigation Organisation (C.A.P.I.O.)

Mrs Sutton was educated at University High School and a city business college. Later, she worked in a city insurance company, on ledgers, statistical records and dissection of same, until her marriage in 1941. She is the wife of a bank manager and has a son and a daughter. Other interests have been musical studies and a short course in free-lance journalism.’

[Source: AFSR No 5 Jul 1966.]

Neville Thornhill



Sightings Investigations Officer, Dec 1967 – Oct 1968.

‘Sightings Investigations Officer: Mr Neville Thornhill was born in South Africa and migrated to Australia at the age of fourteen where he continued his education at Brighton Grammar School. He later studied engineering at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Swinburne Technical College.

His sporting activities have been many and varied and he is currently an active member of the Mountain District Pistol Club. He is married and has two small children.

His interest in U.F.O’s was aroused by his engineering mind and an earnest desire to assist in solving the problem.

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer Review No 8, Oct 1968.]

Thornhill wrote at least one VFSRS article. ‘UFO Investigation’ AFSR No 1, Mar 1970, pp 5,6 & 12.

Other committee members
Aitchison, Harry

Technical Advisor, May 1964- Dec 1965.Committee, Dec 1966; Tape Librarian Dec 1967 – Oct 1968.

Anderson, Albert

Treasurer, Oct 1968.

Anderson, Morris

Treasurer, Dec 1967.

Bezzi, Claude

Committee, Dec 1959 – Nov 1962.

Bristol, Les

Librarian, Oct 1968 – Jul 1970; Committee, Feb 1972 – Dec 1972.

Browning, David

Public Relations Officer, May 1964; Assistant Sightings Investigations Officer, Oct 1968.

Carstairs, Delma

A/g Secretary, Jul 1970.

Coutts, Rodney

Committee, Dec 1959.

Farmer, Dorothy.

Treasurer, Dec 1965 – Dec 1966.

Frances-Williams, Kit

Committee, Dec 1966. Assistant Secretary, Dec 1967 – Oct 1968; Minutes Secretary, Mar 1970 – Dec 1970; Committee, Feb 1972.

Gillman, Dorothy

Secretary, Dec 1959 – Jan 1962; Treasurer, May 1964.

Godden, Ian

Committee, Dec 1959; Librarian & Magazine Editor, May 1964; Librarian, Apr 1960 – Nov 1962.

Hall, Norman

Assistant Librarian, Dec 1959; Committee, Apr 1960 – Jun 1962.

Harrison, June

Secretary, Oct 1968; Assistant Secretary, Mar 1970; Publications Officer, Jul 1970 – Feb 1972.

Leschen, Richard

Sightings Investigations Officer, Dec 1972.

Marrow, Rodney

Librarian, Feb 1972 – Dec 1972.

Mountford, Ray

Committee, Nov 1962.

Neville, Prue

Membership Secretary, Dec 1967.

Shackelford, Jim

Committee, Nov 1962.

Spencer, Ben

Vice President, Dec 1959 – Apr 1960; Vice-President  & Treasurer, Sep 1960- Nov 1962.

Stapleton, William

Sightings Investigation Officer, Mar 1970- Dec 1970; Committee, Feb 1972.

Stapleton wrote at least one piece: ‘The Dartmoor Phenomenon.’ AFSRS No 2, Jul 1970, pp 17-18, and was involved in an extensive investigation into the 1972 Maureen Puddy, Frankston CE3, and possible abduction.

 [Source: Australian Flying Saucer review No 5, Jul 1966.]

Sutton, Wendy

Librarian, May 1965 – Dec 1966.

Tarplee, William

Secretary, Feb 1972 – Dec 1972.

Traverston, Pat

Assistant Secretary, Dec 1972.

Valente, Cathy

Librarian, Dec 1967.

Wilkinson, Albert

Treasurer, Jul 1970; Committee, Feb 1972.

Yates, Clive

A/g Treasurer, Feb 1972 – Dec 1972.

2017 UK UAP files release - Leslie Kean was right

$
0
0
Introduction

Earlier this year, the UK government's National Archives, released a further batch of fifteen UAP files. I recently had the opportunity to examine the contents of these files. In the files, we find a large number of low-level interest sightings, made by members of the public, police officers, pilots etc., relayed to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) via RAF bases, local police, the Civil Aviation Authority and other agencies. We also find details on a number of cases which cried out for, but did not receive, investigation and analysis. There are also copies of MOD internal memos on a range of topics, including sightings, and policy. There is much correspondence from members of the public asking all sorts of questions. Included in this area, are also, questions from sugch officials as Lord Hill-Norton; MPs, and UAP researchers such as David Clarke.

It is not my intent to conduct an exhaustive analysis of this large set of documents; no doubt others elsewhere, will do this. My intent is to simply sample things which interest me, and will therefore possibly interest readers of this blog.



On 3 February 2011, my former co-blogger, Pauline Wilson, published a blog post titled 'Secret UFO Studies in the USA?'

Pauline noted an intriguing paragraph in a then new book by US author Leslie Kean titled 'UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials go on Record.' [Harmony Books; New York; 2010.]

Image from my personal book collection
On page 238 of the book, Kean, speaking of an official UK government document wrote:

'...comes close to verifying the existence of such a secret group in America - the only legitimate, confirmed government document to do that, to my knowledge.'

What was the document?

Kean refers to it as written in 1993 as part of the precursor to the UK's Project Condign.

'The document mentioned by the Defence Intelligence staff...is written by his counterpart in the DIS, it was addressed to Pope's supervisor "SEC(AS)2," the Air Staff deputy director, and classified "secret UK eyes A." (p.238.)

Kean presents the text of paragraph 2:

'2. I am aware from intelligence sources, that xxxxxx believes that such phenomenon exist and has a small team studying them. I am also aware that an informal group exists in the xxxxxxxxxxxx community and it is possible that this reflects a more formal organisation.' (p.239.)

Kean's analysis in the book concluded that the first redaction was 'Russia' and the second was 'US Intelligence.'

Redactions uncovered

The newly released UK UAP papers now reveals the truth behind the redactions.

File DEFE 24/3152 page 176 is a formerly 'Secret UK eyes A' memo dated 2 December 1993, file reference D/DI55/108/15. It is addressed to DI(ST) and titled 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Study - Proposed amendment to NNR2/113. Paragraph 2 of this memo reads:

'I am aware from intelligence sources, that Russia believes that such phenomena exist and has a small team studying them. I am also aware that an informal group exists in the US intelligence community and it is possible that this reflects a more formal assessment activity.'

This appears to be Kean's 1993 document's paragraph 2. It does reveal that Kean's interpretation of the redactions as, redaction one 'Russia' and redaction two as 'US intelligence, is indeed correct.

However, there is additional information available on DEFE 24/3152 pages 219-220. These are on a DI55 paper titled 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), dated 19 June 1995.

'THE US DIMENSION

24. During discussions with [redacted] I have been told that they do not study UAPs but I have been told that an 'unofficial' grouping exists between the agencies. This group has contacts with [redacted] personnel...'

'THE RUSSIAN DIMENSION

26. [Redacted] have confirmed that at least until the early 90's a small team studied UAPs at Ramenskoye.'

It is a pity that we have had to wait almost a quarter of a century to learn the above.


2017 UK UAP files release - the Italian Ministry of Defence

$
0
0
Introduction

On page 152 of the recently released United Kingdom UAP file, DEFE 24/3129/1, titled 'Admin + general UFOs,' I found an interesting letter. it is dated 7th June 1982 and is on the letterhead of the Italian Embassy, London.

The letter is written by the Assistant Air Attaché, of the Office of the Defence and Air Attaché, their file reference DAM/AL/1/1 h 19/40.6, and is addressed to the MOD London [actual addressee redacted.] It reads:

'MOD/Italy has recently updated the Department responsible for the research and compilation of data (data analysis, aerial photographs and general safety measures) relating to UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects.)

Following a successful and fruitful meeting last year, by two Italian officers, with the French authorities, it would be of immense assistance if such a meeting could be arranged with the British counterparts, military and/or civilian to discuss salient organizational points in the UFO sector.

[Redacted] the officers concerned, would be able to attend a meeting, of approximately five day's duration, in the period 1-15 October 1982.

I take this opportunity of thanking you for your assistance in this matter and look forward to receiving a favourable reply for onward transmission to my authorities in Rome.'

Page 151 of the file is a 'Loose Minute' reference D/DS8/75/2 to DI55 Ops (GE) 2 (RAF) with a hand written notation 'Ops GE2b. Speak.' The minute was copied to FLS (Air.), and was dated 10 Jun 1982.

'UFOs - ITALIAN REQUEST

1. Attached is a letter recently recently received from the Italian Embassy. It is largely/explanatory, though it make one wonder what our allies are up to.

2. Obviously a 5-day visit would be vastly excessive - one day should be enough (unless you intend to reveal any dark secrets which you have kept hidden from DS8). This obviously raises the question of whether the visit would be worthwhile but that is for the Italians to judge.

3. Please let me know whether there are any reasons why we should not meet our Italian 'counterparts' and whether you wish to be involved in the discussion.

4. Incidentally, I have assumed that the Italians propose to come here. We could, however, offer to go there (Rome in early October would not be too unpleasant.) If fact if we are keen to keep pace with developments in this clearly fast moving field we really ought to arrange to visit our colleagues in Paris - and indeed the other NATO capitals. An international conference or symposium would also be useful - Venice perhaps would be a suitable location.' [Redacted signature.]

In handwriting, someone had added 'Why not indeed?'with an arrow pointing to the sentence about Venice. Plus 'Ask for help from F U! (Heaven.) [No doubt the Italians are looking to come here for the same reason!]

The file is silent on whether the visit actually occurred, and if so what outcomes were achieved.

Official Italian government UAP research


Front page of the Italian Air Force UAP reporting form

Intrigued by this reference to official Italian government UAP research, I conducted a brief literature search. I found:

1. In 1963, the English 'Flying Saucer Review' (FSR), volume 9 numbers 1-4, carried a series of articles, translation by Gordon Creighton, titled 'The Italian Scene - parts 1-4.' Whilst describing a number of Italian cases, the articles did not mention the position of the Italian government. 

2. In 1964, Jacques Vallee, ( Forbidden Science Journals 1957-1969. North Atlantic Books, Berkerley, California, pp 120-121) recorded a diary entry which read:

Image courtesy of Amazon Books
'I have received a very interesting letter from an Italian military officer I will call Luciano:

"I am a Captain in the Italian Air Force and am employed at the Ministry of Aeronautics in Rome...My interest in the UFO problem began many years ago when I had occasion to speak for the first time with direct witnesses whose sincerity I had no doubt. Previous to that I was very skeptical on the matter."

He described his sources of documentation, his research, and his files of over 6,000 index cards containing the details of sightings since 1947, about 800 of them from Italy itself. He went on:

"When I saw Aimé Michel in Paris last November I was sincerely surprised that he did not know that after the French "flap" of September-October 1954 a corresponding flap took place in Italy. It was of the same magnitude, with a lot of landings, and, much falling of angel hair."

I am answering him right away. Aimé Michel assures me that Luciano is in close touch with military intelligence in his country.'

Further entries in Vallee's diary, mention 'Lucinao.' One dated 10 January 1965 has Luciano advising that 'I have been appointed a UFO consultant to the Italian Air Force. In some cases I participated in the investigations carried out by our authorities. Naturally I have been given full access to the Air Force files.' Another, dated 13 April 1965 conveys details from Luciano of a near landing dated 20 August 1963, which was investigated by himself and a secret service team as it involved a chauffeur to the Italian President. Vallee states that the report was sent to Washington, DC, USA.

3. In Jaques Vallee's 1965 book, 'Anatomy of a Phenomena' on page 136 we read:

Image from my personal collection
'The Italian Air Force once issued a vague statement concerning its files, which contained, in their own words, only very limited information on objects seen flying on the eastern coast of their country in 1954.' Vallee's source for this was 'Statement by the Italian Air Ministry. Le Monde and La Croix. October 26, 1954. Le Figaro October 25, 1954.

4. 1977. An article appeared in the FSR Volume 24 number 1 (1978) pp 26-27, written by Gordon Creighton and titled 'A problem for the Italian Minister of Defence?' It was based on an article which appeared in the Milan illustrated journal, Gente of 19 November 1977, submitted to FSR by Dr Roberto Pinotti, vice president of the group C.U.N. 

Two helicopter crews saw a luminous orange 'circle' at apparent close range at 1735hrs on 27 Oct 1977 at Cagliari Elmas, a military base. There were also multiple ground observers. There was a similar sighting on 2 Nov 1977 at the same base, but this event was not known about until an 'official leak.' Details of the first event were confirmed by the base commandant, Colonel Mario D'Angelo. It was reported in the media that a report had been sent to the Italian Minister of Defence.

5. 1979. FSR Volume 24, number 6, pp 14-15 & 18 has an article by Roberto Pinotti, titled 'The Italian Ministry of Defence and UFOs.' Extracts read:



'Finally on January 5, 1978, the Italian Defence Department put out an ad hoc press release in an attempt "...to answer the citizens who have been writing to the press." The release stated that the 27 Oct 1977 incident, was caused by an aircraft.

The C.U.N. group wrote a letter to the Ministry of Defence. On 31 Mar 1978 C.U.N. received a file containing details of six unclassified UFO sightings by Italian military personnel in 1977.

On 27 May 1978, the Air Force issued a statement about  a 9 Mar 1978 UAP sighting, but without assigning any cause.

Pinotti noted that the six released cases were on a previously unrevealed standard Italian Air Ministry UFO report form.

6. 1988. FSR Volume  33 number 1, pp 1-3 has an article 'An Italian pilot's sighting : and another Italian government cover up?' by Antonio Chiumiento. This concerns the visual observation by an Italian pilot of an object near Rovigo on 18 Jun 1979. The pilot took a series of 80 photographs of an 8m by 3m black cigar shaped object. It was also intermittently observed by radar, and seen by multiple ground observers. Chiumiento's group interviewed the pilot and obtained a copy of one of the series of photos. However, it wasn't until 1984 that the group was able to release details,

FSR v. 33 n. 1
On 2 Nov 1983 the Italian Ministry of Defence stated that the object seen and photographed was actually a balloon composed of black plastic bags. The MOD released three photographs of the object. However, these three pictures showed something different to the one sighted by Chiumiento's group.

Finally, when the 'Summary of UFO sightings March 1979 to April 1985' was released by the General Staff of the Italian Air Force, it was noted that the 18 Jun 1979 incident was listed there as 'Unidentified.'

7. 1996. In his work 'Beyond Top Secret' English researcher and author Timothy Good provided details of just who, in the Italian government, investigated UAP. In part Good's piece read:

'In Italy, sightings of UFOs (oggetti volanti non identificati - OVNI) are dealt with officially by the Ministry of Defence, specifically the Air Force General Staff (2nd department,) which is entrusted by the Defence General Staff with the task of collecting, within the scope of defence, all data concerning such reports, with the collaboration of the Army, Navy and Carabinieri General staffs. The Air Force General Staff shares its interest in the phenomenon with the Inspectorate of the Board of Telecommunications and Flight Assistance (Telecommunicazione ed Assitenza al Volo) and with all regional operating centres, and periodically sends an updated summary of sightings to the Ministry of Defence.

In its statistical summary of sightings from 1979 to 1990, the Air Force General Staff noted that 111 reports were received, with a peak of thirty-two in 1980. A slight majority of sightings occurred in the central region of Italy, particularly along the coasts of the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas (a statistic disputed by Italy's foremost research group...According to the Air Force summary the most reliable reports include the following...'

8. 1999. In "The Proceedings of the Sign Historical Group UFO History Workshop'  appears (pages 115-117) a 'Summary of official UFO research in Italy' written by Edoardo Russo. I have extracted the following dot points of information:

* The first statement released by the Italian Air Force was in 1950

* Details of Vallee's Italian Air Force contact - 'Luciano'

* Mid 1960's - it was found that the Italian Air Force was using the same format report form as the USAF

* Late 1960's - the Carabinieri were collecting some UFO data

* Early 1970's - Ufologist Renzo Cabassi exchanged data with an Air Force intelligence officer

* 1977 - Carabinieri units were ordered to all collect UFO data

* 1978 - UFO groups were given a file of six unclassified military reports from 1978

* 1978 - the MOD ordered centralisation of all their UFO data

* UFO evaluation commission formed

* 1980 - MOD asked the National Research Council if a scientific study of UFOs was feasible. The response was negative

* 1986 - The Air Force released catalogue of 256 cases from between 1979-1985

* 1995 - Ufologists Fiorino and Cabassi meet Air Staff and exchanged data.


1978 - six AF reports send to three UFO groups
1986 - summary of 70 Air Force reports released to two groups
1988-2001 - yearly Air Force UFO summaries released to two UFO groups
1993 - Air Force statistical study of 111 UFO reports published
1996-2001 - full Air Force files released to CISU - 372 reports ~ 3000 pages
2001-to date - UFO sightings summaries online.

10. 2014. 

Two Italian investigative journalists, Lao Petrilli and Vincenzo Sinapi, wrote a book titled 'UFO, I Dossier Italiani!' In writing the book, the authors consulted the Italian Air Force's official UAP files. The authors intent was to provide Italian citizens with all the available details about UAP sightings in that country, without adding their personal views on the subject.



As at 2014, the specific area of the Italian Air Force which held the responsibility for collection and examination of Italian UAP reports,m was the 'General Security Department.' The Air Force's investigations was solely focused on whether or not the UAP was a national security threat to the country. For a detailed interview with one of the authors, click here.

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Italian researcher Edoardo Russo, for providing me with links to some of the information I have used in this article.

2017 UK UAP files release - USAF spyflight intrigue

$
0
0
Background

This post continues a look at aspects of the contents of the release, of the latest batch of United Kingdom UAP files. This time, some documents which appear on DEFE24/3129/1 titled 'Admin + General UFOs.'

On a file which contains numerous low level interest sightings, and general correspondence, there are three documents which refer to an intriguing 1982 observation.

First document

The first document is a telex, dated 20 October 1982, from 280 SU to MODUK AIR, Info AHQ Cyprus. It reports an incident which occurred at 1605z on 19 October 1982, which lasted approximately 90 minutes.

The incident concerned the observation of 'A big object, larger than RC 135, with a multitude of flashing lights 20 at a time.' No shape was recorded.

It was a 'Visual siting and radar contact by crew of United States aircraft type RC 135, callsign Beano 73. Nothing seen by Olympus radar.'

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/boeing-rc135/
The object was first seen to the south from flight level 350, and was initially estimated to be 'about two miles from wing of RC 135, moved position around aircraft and closed.'

The object's movement was described as 'Object tailed Beano 73 for 90 mins on its northeast/southwest race track between positions QJED2020 and QJDC4000.'

The weather was described as 'clear night conditions.'

The incident was reported 'while occurring to duty controllers at 280SU, RAF Troodos/Olympus radar.'

Other information recorded on the telex was 'Reported by crew of Beano 73. Reliable. Witnessed by whole crew, three fighters intercepted Beano 73 and report an object departing to the south but nothing seen visually.'

My notes

1. An RC 135 was a USAF reconnaissance aircraft.

2. 280SU was the 280 Signals Unit of the RAF.

3. Olympus radar was apparently at RAF Troodos, Cyprus.

The second document


Image courtesy of Google maps

This is a 'Loose Minute' dated 29 October 1982 from Ops (R)2a (RAF) with a file reference of AF/4/193/I/OND, addressed to Ops (GE) 2 (RAF) and reads:

'UFO Incident 19 Oct 82

1. We spoke reference to the UFO incident which occurred on 19 Oct 82, when a USAF aircraft flying in the Eastern Mediterranean to the south of Cyprus reported an unidentified aircraft flying alongside. The incident was monitored by 280SU and we have now received film of the 280SU radar picture and the tape on which radio transmissions were recorded.

2. We have very little to add to the information which is on the film and tape. However, you will wish to know that the two USN F14 aircraft were launched from a carrier and an RAF Phantom, which was on a night flying exercise, were sent to assist. None of these three aircraft reported seeing the 'UFO,' nor was it seen on any ground or seaborne radar, including at 280SU. We have a strong suspicion that the 'UFO' was a mirage effect from lights on the coast of Israel or Lebanon.

3. We are arranging for a transcript to be made of the tape recording and will let you have both the transcript and the tape as soon as possible. We attach the film taken at 280SU.

4. The US authorities wish to have copies of any reports which might result from your studies. We will arrange for them to received a copy of the voice transcript.'

My comments:

1. If 280SU didn't pick up the object on radar, then why do the RAF say  'we have now received film of the 280SU radar picture?'

2. Also, the RAF says 'nor was it seen on any ground or seaborne radar, including at 280SU.' Yet, they also say in the original telex 'three fighters intercepted Beano 73 and report an object departing to the south but nothing seen visually.' How can the fighters report the object departing to the south, if they did not see it and didn't pick it up on their radar?

Something is not quite right here. Does it mean that the RC135 radar showed it going south and they told the fighters this? We do not know.

On the bottom of the second document, there is a hand written note which reads:

'NOA
Film passed to CS(REPS) 1 Nov 82. receipt E100. Work completed by 12 Nov 82. 2 10X10 prints of each usable frame will be printed. Paper is glazed - to have unglazed prints would take even longer. CS (REPS) will call 7276 when work completed. 1 Nov 82.'

Third document

The third document appears to be the acknowledgement of the job request for prints from the film. It shows Ops (GE)2A(RAF). Room 4258 MOD main building. It refers to 'your request dated 1.11.82.' Allocated job number 3110/82.

My comments:

1. This certainly appears to be an intriguing case. However, we are lacking a copy of the transcript of the voice recording, and copies of prints made from the 'film of the 280SU radar picture.'

2. No one that I am aware of, has even previously heard of this sighting prior to the release for this file; nor does there appear to be any available US documentation about it.

3. UK researcher Dr David Clarke wrote a piece about the sighting, shortly after the release of the files. He provided the following additional information:

* RAF Troodos was a remote base on the island of Cyprus
* The incident happened shortly after 4pm local time
*Olympus referes to 280 Signals Unit base, RAF Troodos, Mt Olympus, Cyprus
* Copies of the documents were circulated to:
 - Assistant Chief Scientist (RAF)
 - D Ops (GE) RAF
 - DI55
 - DSTI.

4. David Clarke states that the incident commenced "shortly after 4 pm local time.' However, the DEFE file telex gives the commencement time as 1605z i.e. 4.05pm zulu. As local time is 2 hours ahead of zulu time, that makes the commencement of the incident, as 6.05pm local time. This 2 hour difference, means that the event commenced and finished in darkness. It also explains why the RAF Phantom aircraft sent to investigate is said to have been on a 'night training exercise.'

I consulted two different astronomical programs and found the following, based on latitude 35.13N; 33.43E ( i.e. Cyprus; not the location of the aircraft at the time, which is not actually known from the file's documents.)

At 6.05pm local time the Sun was below the horizon, at azimuth 258 degrees, sunset having taken place around 5pm local time that night. The moon (13% illuminated) was at altitude 13 degrees; azimuth 232 degrees (SW), and set at 7.28pm local time at azimuth 245 degrees. The planet Venus was below the horizon. The planet Mars was at altitude 18 degrees; azimuth 220 degrees. The planet Jupiter was below the horizon.

5. Can we locate any weather data which may or may not throw some light on the 'We have a strong suspicion that the 'UFO' was a mirage effect from lights on the coast of Israel or Lebanon,' comment from the RAF?

The University of Wyoming maintains a data base of upper atmospheric soundings  I checked these for any available data from Nicosia, Cyprus for 19 October 1982. Unfortunately no data is available.
However, I did find data from station 40179, at Bet Dagan, Israel, for both 1200z 19 October 1982


and 0000z 20 October 1982. Recall that the event commenced at 1605z 19 October 1982. At the time of the incident the aircraft was reported to be south of Cyprus, and apparently to the north of Bet Dagan.


I will leave it to those with meteorological expertise to tell me if the data assists with a meteorological explanation for the RC135 incident.

My final comments

No doubt, several UK UAP researchers are attempting to locate individuals who served with 280SU in 1982, in an effort to find someone with first hand knowledge of the event. In addition, hopefully someone is also on the track of the officials whose names are redacted in the official documentation.

2017 UK UAP files release - Defence Intelligence interests

$
0
0
Background

This is the fourth in my series of posts based on material from the 2017 United Kingdom UAP files release. The UK National Archives advised that they would not be uploaded these files to their website, unlike previous releases. In addition, as the Archives require payment for the use of images of these documents, if they are placed on a website; I have chosen not to provide such images in my series of posts.

Introduction to this post

Various UK defence intelligence units within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) were on the distribution lists for incoming UAP reports. However, published analyses of the raw data, are few and far between.

An exception

One notable exception is to be found on file DEFE 24/3126/1 titled "Space Debris Impacts in Scotland/NE England on 23 September 1997.' It is a Scientific and Technical Memorandum - No. D/D150/97/17, and originally marked 'UK Restricted.'

The report, 12 pages in length, is an in-depth analysis of reported sightings over a wide area of the northern UK on 23 September 1997.

Between 0700 and 1000 zulu (UTC - the old GMT) on the morning of 23 September 1997, there were at least 15 sightings reported to ARCC Kinross. Individual reports cited the possibility of an aircraft crash; flares; a flash in the sky; and an explosion.

Reports came from people on the ground and from crews of aircraft in flight. Included in these observations were reports of a 'number of possible impacts.'

After initial suggestions of a crashed aircraft were eliminated; the Royal Observatory Scotland, suggested that a high altitude bolide (bright meteor) might account for the observations. Shock waves were detected by the British Geological Survey, before 0930z, near the Moray Firth.

The report, noted that a bolide 'does not account for all the observations reported to the police...' In addition, two of the observations from aircrews were one hour apart. The report then examined the possibility of more than one bolide being seen. However, it finally discounts the bolide hypothesis.

The final suggestion was that the entire group of sightings was due to the re-entry into the atmosphere of  fragments of the Russian satellite Cosmos 2343, which had been launched into a low earth orbit on 15 May 1997. Destruction in orbit on 16 September 1997 had left 50 smaller pieces. The report concludes that fragments of Cosmos 2343 were the most likely cause of the 23 September 1997 sightings.

My comments

1. As I mentioned, it is rare to see such an analysis from a defence intelligence area of the UK MOD. The distribution list for this report (90 copies) makes for interesting reading and includes D151; D152 and D157.

2. I examined the suggested cause, and found relevant data in the publication titled 'History of on-orbit satellite fragmentations' 13th edition, NASA, 2004.  Based on the raw data provided at the beginning of the UK MOD report, I agree with the report's assessment.



3. My former co-blogger, Pauline Wilson, wrote two fascinating blog posts about the interest of the United Kingdom; Australia; and New Zealand's defence intelligence agencies, and UAPs. These may be read here and here.

4. What is interesting, is that the focus of each of the UK, NZ and Australian defence intelligence areas, was said to be the national security interests of their respective countries. Each stated that, they had no scientific interest in UAP reports. Not withstanding these statements, the UK UAP files do contain some reports which seemed deserving of a follow up and analysis. I will simply give a couple of examples:

a. DEFE 24/2821/1, titled 'Air Traffic Control Low flying UFOs' has this report.

On Saturday 24 October 1992, at 2015hrs local time, a motor bike rider, was travelling on the A352 near Owermoigne, Dorset. The witness reported that in a clear sky, an object came down from above and travelled alongside the motorbike for 100 yards, then shot off into the sky. It was described as a yellow/orange 'bright blob.' The duration of the sighting was about 30 seconds. The witness was sufficiently intrigues as to report the incident to local police.

b. DEFE 24/2822/1 titled 'Air Traffic Control Low flying UFOs' has the following.

On 24 January 1995 at 1715hrs local time, two aircraft, travelling north west of Mintlaw, 'were shadowed' by a constant, faint white light at the apparent same altitude and speed as the aircraft. The light reportedly climbed and descended around the lead aircraft, then made a sharp climb and dive. It returned to the same altitude as the aircraft, then disappeared into cloud.

Even though these are not 'classic' UFO cases, they still seem to have been worthy of further attention, even if they ultimately were found to be caused by a rare atmospheric phenomenon.

2017 UK UAP files release - the 1990 Tornado incident

$
0
0
Background

This is the fifth in a series of posts, drawn from material to be found in the 2017 release of UAP files by the United Kingdom government. As previously mentioned, I am not intending to provide a comprehensive catalogue of the contents of the files, I will leave UK researchers to do that. There are particular aspects of the files, namely certain documents, which have caught my attention, and this is what I am writing about. This post concerns a sighting by the pilot of a RAF Tornado aircraft on 5 November 1990, which at first glance, appears highly intriguing.

The report

Image courtesy of Google Maps

An 'unclassified' telex/teletype dated 6 November 1990 is to be found on file DEFE 24/3127/1 page 182. It is from RAF West Drayton to MODUK AIR, subject 'Aerial Phenomena.' It reads:

'A. 5 Nov 1990
B. One large aeroplane (shape). 5 to 6 white steady lights. 1 blue steady light. Contrails from blue area.
C. In the air. M.C. 6 area. Fl270 YPENBURG
D. Naked eye
E. Heading 100 degrees same alt Fl270
F. Into our 12 o'clock
G. One quarter mile ahead
H. Steady
J. N/k
K. N/k
L. Working Dutch Mill radar
M. [Redacted} 2 AC SQN
N. Nil
O. 2 others from Laarbruch
P. Other info. Aircraft was under Dutch mil control. UFO appeared in our right hand side same level. We were travelling at Mach point 8. It went into our 12 o'clock and accelerated away. Another 2 Tornadoes seen it and possible identified it as a stealth aircraft.'

More detail

On pages 171-174 of the same file, there is an expanded, more easy to understand summary of the sighting. This is included as part of a 'Loose Minute' dated 30 October 2000 to DAS4a1(Sec), responding to D/Sec(AS) 64/3/5 dated 25 Sep 00, titled 'Information on Air Defence matters.'

'3. A Tornado aircraft, probably one of a formation of 3GR1s, (1) was conducting a routine eastbound transit from an airfield in UK to Laarbruch in Germany during the evening of Monday 5 Nov. 19. The aircraft was following a standard TACAN route to join TACAN BLUE  6 at the Flight Information Region  (FIR) boundary at a military reporting point known as MC6. Shortly before reaching MC6 control of the aircraft was  transferred by the London Military air traffic controller at RAF West Drayton to his counterpart at Dutch Mil Radar in the Netherlands in accordance with standard procedure.

At 1800z, the time the aerial phenomena was observed, the aircraft was leaving UK airspace in the MC6 area at Flight Level 270 (FL270), heading 100 degrees at speed Mach 0.8.

The aircraft was overtaken on the right by an aircraft shaped object, displaying 5/6 steady white and one blue light, at the same altitude which then proceeded to its 12 o'clock position at a range of 440 yards. The probable route of the Tornado is shown on the map at Annex A. It is assumed that the aircraft was still in contact with West Drayton on this second radio and chose to report the incident to UK authorities rather than the Dutch.

4. The incident is unusual in that the aircraft chose to report the incident as an aerial phenomena rather than as  an Air Proximity Report (AirProx) to highlight the loss of standard separation between aircraft (at this altitude separation  should be 1,000 ft or 5 nautical miles). There is no record of an AirProx report being made on this date in the UK. It is not known, however, whether AirProx of Aerial Phenomena reports were filed with Dutch authorities.

At 1800z on 5 Nov it is dark both on the ground and at FL270. This explains the reference to lights and to  'one large aeroplane (shape)' rather than a more specific description which would be expected of a professional military observer. In these low light conditions, it is generally difficult to judge range and relative motion and it may well be that the aircraft captain had subsequently revised his appreciation of the incident and  decided not to take the major step of reporting an air proximity hazard. (2)  Significantly, had controllers at West Drayton or Dutch Mil witnessed a loss of standard separation on radar, they would have raised Air Prox Reports in their own right, this was certainly not done at West Drayton.

5. Finally, since the incident clearly involved one or more aircraft departing UK airspace, it is highly improbable that the situation generated any UK Air Defence interest....

8. The 3 Tornados on 5 Nov 00, were not air defence aircraft and were not on an operational mission. There is no evidence that the UK Air Defence radar network either did or did not detect the 'unknown.''

There were two notes which I have labelled as (1) and (2) above:

1. Air Defence Tornado F3s are unlikely to have been flying to Laarbruch.

2. GR's do not carry cameras. 'In addition, the GR1 radar at that time, designed for terrain following, had a very limited air to air capability...'

File DEFE 24/3128/1 page 18 contains a fully unredacted copy of the 6 November 1990 telex/teletype which shows that the reporting pilot was 'SQNLDR Garwood 2 AC SQN.'

An exceptional report?

From all of the above material, one could conclude that something rather unusual had been flying past the Tornados that night, over the North Sea. However, a number of the details rang alarm bells for me and I went off to search for additional information.

In 2009, and then again in 2011, the story hit the media, which conveyed additional details. This reported that there was no radar detection by the Dutch military, nor by the Tornado crew of two.
However, it was on the blog written by UK researcher, Dr David Clarke, that I found an answer.

In a 2009 blog post about the third release of UK UAP files, Clarke wrote that there were documents on files DEFE 31/180:180-182 about this sighting. Later, he wrote:

'It later emerged that the RAF Tornado pilots had actually seen burning debris from a Soviet rocket body, used to launch a satellite into orbit, that fell back to earth, re-entering the atmosphere in a spectacular light show over Central Europe. A re-investigation into the incident during 2005 by Dutch researchers - plus a recording of the discussion between the pilots and Dutch ground controllers - can be found here.' (KB - unfortunately the link provided, is now broken.)

Additional sources of information

I then went to a website run by Ted Molczan which contains a record of visually observed satellite re-entries and there it was. At 1800z on 5 November 1990, object 1990-094c, a Russian Gorizont 21 rocket, had been observed re-entering the earth's atmosphere over Belgium, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland and Italy. Notably, there were no observations from the UK.



The data base of the French government research group, GEIPAN also contained sightings of the re-eentry. 

http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/index.php?id=202&L=1&cas=1990-11-01225

Further sources and discussion

I wish to thank Dutch researcher Wim Van Utrecht, for providing me with links to other sources of both information, discussion and analysis of this event. For anyone interested in reading more, here are those links.






A lesson to be learned

This incident is a perfect reminder that at night, it is extremely difficult for even trained professionals, such as aircraft pilots, to gauge the distance of objects seen in the sky. Secondly, that if someone simply came across the data on this incident in the UK files, and published only this, then the observation would seem to have been of some 'unknown' object. Thirdly, the UK files present only one observation. Once we have access to multiple others, spread across several countries, then the total picture of a re-entering object emerges. 

The full version of the Western Australian Police Department UAP file

$
0
0
Background

Between 1951 and 1975, the Police Department of the West Australian government kept a file titled 'Unidentified Flying Objects.' The State Record Office (SRO) of Western Australia posted some 55 pages of this file, to their website around 2015. I came across it and wrote about the contents of the available pages, in a blog post dated 3 July 2015.

It wasn't until 2017 that I noticed that there was a gap in the folio numbering of the 55 available pages. This indicated that there might be other folios of the file available to me. I therefore communicated with the SRO, and indeed the full version of the file contains 156 images. I have just recently purchased a copy of the full file.



My previous post covered folios 1-31 (1951-1954) and folios 123-148 (1970-1975). Thus this current blog will fill in the gaps.

Sightings in this section

26 August 1954. V E, R V and R M H Antonio were in a car near Monument Hill, near Northam at 2.15pm and sighted a grey, oval shaped object in the clear sky. It was stationary.

15 December 1954. At 3am, two men, travelling south by car from Carnarvon to Geraldton saw a light in the ESE sky. Seen for 20 minutes. They reported seeing 'portholes,' along the side of the machine. The object rotated every 30 seconds.

 6 March 1957. Three men were travelling west along the Great Eastern Highway at 12.30am when they sighted a very bright green light with a tail, above trees. It rose up, then arced over the trees. Duration 4-5 seconds. It lit up the whole countryside.

3 July 1957. A number of people at the Fibre Queen Asbestos mine, 126 miles SE of Port Hedland, said they saw , at 10pm, a very bright light light up the whole area. Several explosions were then heard.

28 November 1957. At 10.45 am a Mundrabilla station hand heard a loud explosion and saw a cloud of dust and smoke rise into the sky. Soon after that he saw an object , cigar shaped, 030 feet long with no wings. Also at 10.45am two persons some distance away saw the same thing for 5 minutes and thought it was a guided missile. It came in from Eucla, circled at Madura and then went eastwards over Mundrabilla. One person reported that a piece fell off it. There was a blue vapour trail. The RAAF said it was a high flying Canberra jet aircraft.

19 August 1960. At Yallalong Station, 90 miles from Mullewa at 4pm the station owner reported seeing a bright object in the sky, The manager of Curbar Station 160 miles north of Mullewa heard an explosion.

5 August 1961. At 8.20am at Mt Hale Station. The very well known story of multiple objects dropping 'angel hair.' Interviews with some of the observers. For my catalogue and analysis of this and similar 'angel hair' cases, click here.

2 August 1964. At Wittenoom, at 3am , Mr E Rossi was at the Hamersley Ranges, 7 miles south of Wittenoom. He said he saw a 200 foot long object with square windows. It was well lit from within. There were no wings, and no tail. It was travelling at an estimated 200 mph, south to north. It had a tail of flame. It was also seen by three other men. For my cold case review click here.

27 September 1965. At 3.30 am, C K Hallett and M F Holbrook were travelling by truck near the Cane River, 30 miles north of Onslow. Their headlights lit up a cylindrical object. estimated to be 10 feet high and 10 feet in diameter, which took off from the ground at high speed. The two men travelled on in the truck. 10 miles later, they met two other people attending to a broken don truck. After being at this new location for 10 minutes the object appeared again. It swooped down over the two trucks at 200-300 mph. It lit up the surrounding area with a pale green light. The object itself was iridescent green and was lit up all over. It then climbed to a high altitude and disappeared from view.

The Police interviewed Holbrook who added that the object originally travelled roughly east to west, slightly towards them. It crossed the road in front of them and landed, then immediately took off again at high speed. It rose at a 45 degree angle and had descended at a slightly less angle. There was no noise from it. It was pale iridescent green and glowing. It had touched the ground for only a few seconds before rising up again.

On the second viewing at about 4 am, they were facing sought on the bank of the Cane River. The object had been travelling east to west at a low altitude slowly descending as if going to land again. He judged that the object would have been again landing in the same area as on the first occasion. It was the same colour as the first time, but was also emitting a bright white light, sparkling. There were small sparklets falling out of the light. The object passed within an estimated 100 yards of the observers and was silent.

14-15 August 1966. P G Johnston of Kununurra, was driving a bulldozer at night. At 11.54pm on the 14th he watched bright lights come from the south-west, slow down, and stop over a hill at an estimated distance of 1 mile. Then he saw a row of red lights, which appeared to come from behind the first light. There were 6-8 of them. These were not very bright. A few seconds later the red lights went out and the white light grew brighter, in fact too bright to look at.

An area about 12 feet around him lit up like a searchlight. Duration 5 minutes. The bright light went out and four less bright red lights travelled down behind a hill over which they had been stationary. The witness then sat and eat a meal. Then lights appeared from behind the hill and approached to within a 1/4 mile. These hovered 20 foot in the air. A bright white light came on and he could see this clearly. After 3-4 minutes this light went out and he then saw red lights over Kun Air strip.

By starlight he observed a 'flying saucer' type machine. It tilted as it rose so he could see its top. It was silver in colour, 10 feet high, 180 feet long and 80-100 feet wide. Red lights appeared to be portholes on the long side. As it rose, what seemed to be 3-4 points of vapour trailed from the underside. This wandered about the valley for 1 1/2 hours before seeming to land on hills. The lights were there till the first light of dawn on 15 August.

14 February 1967. At around the same time as there was a search for the American Biosatellite believed to have come down over Western Australia, there was a sighting between 7 and 7.30pm of an orange light seen from Bunbury.

30 October 1967. The classic encounter case, near Boyup Brook, between a car and an object, where the driver states that the car instantly decelerated from high speed without any effects, and then accelerated back to high speed in an instant, again with no effect on the driver. For my cold case review click here. 

5 May 1968. At 11am there was a report of what appeared to be a flare off Bremer Bay.

25 May 1969. At 2.43pm at Derby, there was a report of a large 'jet' seen NW to WNW.

11 March 1970. AT Christmas Creek Station, 60 miles east of Fitzroy, a cruising object left a vapour tail, as it travelled NW at high speed. The trail was not constant but broken. Smoke followed it to the ground.
Viewing all 837 articles
Browse latest View live