After 11 February 1949, the work at ATIC on flying saucers was called Project Grudge. It issued one report, designated as Technical Report No. 102-AC 49/15 - 100, dated August 1949, originally classified "Secret," and declassified on 1 August 1952. The report concerns itself with detailed study of 244 sighting reports received up to January 1949. Comments on individual cases from an astronomical point of view by Dr. Hynek predominate. About 32% of the cases were considered to have been explained as sightings of astronomical objects.
Another 12% were judged to have been sightings of weather balloons on the basis of detailed analysis of the reports made by the Air Weather Service and the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory. Some 33% were dismissed as hoaxes or reports that were too vague for explanation, or as sightings of airplanes under unusual conditions. A residue of 23% was considered as "Unknown."
Although the report was declassified in 1952, not many copies are in existence. We were supplied a copy by the Air Force for our work on this project. The report is discussed in some detail by Ruppelt (1956).
He implies that the investigations of the residue were incomplete and inadequate.
Examination of the record indicates that many of the reports were too vague for interpretation and that if anything, the Air Force investigators gave them more attention than they deserved. Two of the reports are reproduced here as a sample of the kind of material involved, and the kind of comment on it that was made by Air Force investigators:
Incident No. 40. , , Phoenix, Arizona. One observer witnessed an elliptical, flat gray object, measuring 20-30 ft. across, flying 400-600 mph, spiraling downward to 2000 ft. from 5000 ft then ascending at a 45° angle into an overcast. Observer ran into a garage where he obtained a Kodak Brownie 120 box camera, and snapped two pictures; one negative, and a print of the other, are contained in project files. The negative displays a small apparently flat object rounded on one end, and pointed on the other. The object appears to have a hole in the center. The image is in stark contrast with the background of clouds. From the print, the object appears to be jet black with sharp outlines. Four expert photographers concur in the opinion that the image is of true photographic nature. However, they disagree with each other as to the possibility of filming such an occurrence under the conditions described. Considering the object was gray as described, and at a distance of 2000 ft., it seems unlikely that it would appear pure black on the print. In subsequent correspondence to the reporter of this incident, the observer refers to himself as Chief of Staff of Panoramic Research Laboratory, the letterhead of which lists photography among one of its specialties. Yet, the negative was carelessly cut and faultily developed. It is covered with streaks and over a period of six months, has faded very noticeably. An OSI agent discovered that a letter by this observer was published by Amazing Stories magazine early this year. In this letter he stated that he had been interviewed by two Federal agents, had given them pictures of "flying discs" and that the pictures had not been returned. He requested the advice of the magazine as to how to proceed to sue the Government. This individual is aware of the whereabouts of these pictures, but has never requested their return. There are other undesirable aspects to this case. The observer's character and business affiliations are presently under investigation, the results of which are not yet known. Dr. Irving Langmuir studied subject photographs, and after learning of the prior passage of a thunderstorm, discounted the photographed object as being merely paper swept up by the winds.
AHC Opinion: In view of the apparent character of the witness, the conclusion by Dr. Langmuir seems entirely probable.
Incident No. 51. , , Oswego, Oregon. A housewife observed twelve to fifteen round silver-colored objects at a high altitude. No further information was submitted, therefore no conclusion can be reached.
The Grudge Report contains these recommendations:
In accordance with the recommendations, a press release announcing the closing of Project Grudge was issued on .
A fuller statement of Conclusions and Recommendations is given on page 10 of the Grudge Report and is quoted here in full:
There is no evidence that objects reported upon are the result of an advanced scientific foreign development; and, therefore they constitute no direct threat to the national security. In view of this, it is recommended that the investigation and study of reports of unidentified flying objects be reduced in scope. Headquarters AMC will continue to investigate reports in which realistic technical applications are clearly indicated.
NOTE: It is apparent that further study along present lines would only confirm the findings presented
herein.
recommended that pertinent collection directives be revised to reflect the contemplated change in policy.
All evidence and analyses indicate that reports of unidentified flying objects are the result of:
Misinterpretation of various conventional objects.
A mild form of mass-hysteria and war nerves.
Individuals who fabricate such reports to perpetrate a hoax or to seek publicity.
Psychopathological persons.
It is, therefore, recommended that Conclusions 1 and 2 of this report, with sufficient supporting data, be
declassified and made public in the form of an official press release. This action would aid in dispelling public
apprehension, often directly attributable to the sensationalistic reporting of many of these incidents by the
press and radio.
There are indications that the planned release of sufficient unusual aerial objects coupled with the release of related psychological propaganda would cause a form of mass-hysteria. Employment of these methods by or against an enemy would yield similar results.
In view of this the Psychological Warfare Division and other governmental agencies interested in
psychological warfare should be informed of the results of this study. These agencies should then coordinate in
and provide further recommendations for public release of material relative to unidentified flying objects as
recommended herein.
The remarks under B. and C., originally dated , indicate that the Air Force was aware of the public relations problem involved in the UFO situation. The Air Force was also aware that public concern with the problem could be used in psychological warfare. This was just two years after interest in the subject had been generated by newspaper publicity about the Kenneth Arnold sighting. The same kind of problem in a slightly different form was an important consideration when the problem was again reviewed by the Robertson panel in .
Even in 1968 opinion remains sharply divided as to whether or not the Air Force should have done more or less to investigate UFOs.
By 1950 magazine and book publishers had discovered that money could be made in the UFO field. The first major magazine article appeared in the issue of True magazine dated . It was entitled The Flying Saucers are Real, written by Donald Keyhoe. True magazine is an unusual place in which to announce a major scientific discovery, but that is what this article did: it unequivocally asserted that flying saucers are vehicles being used by visitors from outer space to scrutinize the earth. The 1950 Keyhoe article was the subject of a great deal of radio, television, and newspaper comment.
In the issue, True extended its coverage of UFOs with an article entitled "How Scientists Tracked
Flying Saucers," written by Commander R. B. McLaughlin,
U.S.N. CDR McLaughlin came out on the side of Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis.
Describing an UFO he had seen at White Sands, he declared, I
am convinced that it was a flying saucer, and further, these discs are spaceships from another planet, operated by
animate, intelligent beings.
True continued to establish its position by publishing a collection of
seven UFO photographs in its issue.
More serious interest developed in the news media. The New York Times () published an editorial entitled, "Those Flying Saucers - Are They or Aren't They?" and the U. S. News and World Report () carried a story relating the flying saucers to the Navy's abandoned XF-5-U project. Edward R. Murrow produced (9 September A7) an hour-long television roundup on the subject. In its issue, Life published an article on "Farmer [X's] Flying Saucer" based on the photographs taken at the witness' farm near McMinnville, Ore. (see Section III, Chapter 3 n1NCAS Ed. Note: This is Case 46).
The first three books on flying saucers also appeared in 1950. The smallest of these was a 16-page booklet by Kenneth A. Arnold entitled, "The Flying Saucer as I Saw It." Next there appeared a book by the Hollywood correspondent of Variety, Frank Scully, entitled Behind the Flying Saucers published by Holt and Co., New York. In the fall of 1950, Donald Keyhoe's first book, The Flying Saucers are Real appeared, published by Fawcett Publications of Greenwich, Conn. It was essentially an expansion of his article in the issue of True.
A new field for book publishing had been established: each year since 1950 has seen the publication of an increasing number of books on the subject.
In accordance with policy decisions based on the final report of Project Grudge, the activity was discontinued as a separate project and ATIC's investigation of UFO reports was handled as a part of regular intelligence activities. Then, on , an incident occurred at the Army Signal Corps radar center at Fort Monmouth, N. J. An UFO was reported seen on radar travelling much faster than any of the jet planes then in the air. Later it turned out that the radar operator had miscalculated the speed and the "UFO" was identified as a conventional 400 mph jet airplane.
Before this explanation was discovered, however, the case attracted the attention of Maj. Gen. C. P. Cabell, director of Air Force Intelligence. He ordered a re-activation of Project Grudge as a new and expanded project under the direction of E. J. Ruppelt . Ruppelt headed the new project Grudge from its former establishment on , and later under its new designation as Project Blue Book in , until he left the Air Force in September 1953.
Starting in , Project Grudge and
later Project Blue Book issued a series of Status
Reports
numbered 1 through 12. Numbers 1 through 12 were originally classified Confidential
, while 10, 11,
12 were classified Secret
. All were declassified as of 9 September 1960 but copies were not readily
available until 1968 when they
were published by NICAP.
The story of the Fort Monmouth sightings is told in Special Report No. 1, dated , and is quoted in part here both for its intrinsic interest and as representative of the way in which the investigations were reported:
On 10 September 1951 an AN/MPG-1 radar set picked up a fast-moving low-flying target (exact altitude undetermined) at approximately 1100 hours southeast of Fort Monmouth at a range of about 12,000 yards. The target appeared to approximately follow the coast line changing its range only slightly but changing its azimuth rapidly. The radar set was switched to full-aided azimuth tracking which normally is fast enough to track jet aircraft, but in this case was too slow to be resorted to.
Upon interrogation, it was found that the operator, who had more experience than the average student, was giving a demonstration for a group of visiting officers. He assumed that he was picking up a high-speed aircraft because of his inability to use full-aided azimuth tracking which will normally track an aircraft at speeds up to 700 mph. Since he could not track the target he assumed its speed to be about 700 mph. However, he also made the statement that he tracked the object off and on from 1115 to 1118, or three minutes. Using this time and the ground track, the speed is only about 400 mph.
No definite conclusions can be given due to the lack of accurate data but it is highly probable that due to the fact that the operator was giving a demonstration to a group of officers, and that he thought he picked up a very unusual radar return, he was in an excited state, accounting for his inability to use full-aided azimuth tracking. He admitted he was "highly flustrated" in not being able to keep up with the target using the aided tracking. The weather on 10 September was not favorable for anomalous propagation.
Here is a quotation from the report of another sighting at Fort Monmouth made the next day:
On 11 September 1951, at about 1330, a target was picked up on an SCR-584 radar set, serial number 315, that displayed unusual maneuverability. The target was approximately over Havesink, New Jersey, as indicated by its 10,000 yard range, 6,000 feet altitude and due north azimuth. The target remained practically stationary on the scope and appeared to be hovering. The operators looked out of the van in an attempt to see the target since it was at such a short range, however, overcast conditions prevented such observation. Returning to their operating positions the target was observed to be changing its elevation at an extremely rapid rate, the change in range was so small the operators believed the target must have risen nearly vertically. The target ceased its rise in elevation at an elevation angle of approximately 1,500 mils at which time it proceeded to move at an extremely rapid rate in range in a southerly direction once again the speed of the target exceeding the aided tracking ability of the SCR-584 so that manual tracking became necessary. The radar tracked the target to the maximum range of 32,000 yards at which time the target was at an elevation angle of 300 mils. The operators did not attempt to judge the speed in excess of the aided tracking rate of 700 mph.
It is highly probable that this is an example of anomalous propagation as the weather on 11 September was favorable for this type phenomenon. The students stated that they were aware of this phenomenon however, it is highly probable that due to the previous sightings of what they thought were unusual types of aircraft, they were in the correct psychological condition to see more such objects.
Meantime the news media continued to give the UFO stories a big play. In ; the incident now known to all UFO buffs as "The Case of the Lubbock Lights," attracted a great deal of attention .
In the closing months of 1951, Ruppelt arranged for the technical assistance of a large well-known research organization in the Mid-West
for his reactivated Project Grudge. This organization was assigned the task of
developing a questionnaire for formal interviewing of UFO
sighters. It was also to make a detailed statistical analysis of the UFO reports on hand at that time and
later.
At the beginning of 1952, public interest had reached a point at which the first of the amateur study organizations to function on a national scale was formed. This was the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) of Tucson, Ariz., founded by Mrs. Coral Lorenzen. Its first mimeographed bulletin was mailed out to 52 members in July. In 1968 this organization claimed 8,000 members.
With the change of name from Project Grudge to Project Blue Book in there soon followed a step-up in support and authority for UFO study at ATIC. The instructions to Air Force bases relative to the new level of effort are contained in Air Force Letter 200-5, dated . Among other things it specifies that early UFO reports from the bases throughout the country are to be sent by telegram both to ATIC and to the Pentagon, followed by fuller reports to be submitted by air mail.
The big event of 1952 was the large number of reports of UFOs seen visually and on radar in the Washington, D. C. area during June and July. This was a big year for UFO reports elsewhere as well, the largest number on record having come to the Air Force during that year. Table 1 gives the number of UFO reports received at Wright-Patterson for each month from to the present. Inspection of Table 1 shows the great variation of reports that exists from month to month and from year to year. It is not known whether these fluctuations reflect a real actual variation in number of sightings by the public, or are largely the result made up of shifts in the propensity of the public to make reports. Attempts have been made to correlate the maxima with waves of press publicity, with oppositions of Mars, and with other events, but none have yielded very convincing evidence of a real association between the events. For an appreciation of the perils inherent in the statistical analysis of such data, the reader is referred to Section VI, Chapter 10 of this report.
On there occurred the case of Scoutmaster D. S. Desvergers in Fonda, which Ruppelt,
(1956) has called the best hoax in UFO
history.
It is also discussed in Stanton (1966) and Lorenzen (1962).
The scoutmaster was taking three scouts home about , driving along a road near West Palm Beach. He thought he saw something burning in a palmetto swamp and stopped to investigate, leaving the boys in the car. As he drew nearer he saw that the light was not from a fire but was a phosphorescent glow from a circular object hovering overhead. From it emerged a flare that floated toward him.
When, after some 20 min., the scoutmaster had not returned, the boys summoned help from a nearby farmhouse. A deputy sheriff was called. When he and the boys returned to the car they found the scoutmaster emerging in a dazed condition from the palmetto thicket. His forearms had been burned and three small holes were found burned in his cap.
In the investigation that followed some grass near where the "saucer" had been was found scorched at its roots but not on top. How this could have happened is not clear.
| Magazine | Title | Date | Page |
|---|---|---|---|
| American Mercury | "Flying Saucer Hoax" | October | 61-66 |
| Collier's | "How to Fly a Saucer" | October | 50-51 |
| Life | "Have We Visitors from Outer Space?" | April | 80-82 |
| "Saucer Reactions" | June | 20 | |
| New Republic | "New Saucer Epidemic" | August | 49 |
| Newsweek | "Korean Saucers" | March | 44 |
| "Saucer Season" | August | 56 | |
| "Saucers Under Glass" | August | 49 | |
| New Yorker | "Reporter at Large" | September | 68 |
| Popular Science | "Flying Saucers are Old Stuff" | May | 145-47 |
| "How to see Flying Saucers" | September | 167-70 | |
| "Hollywood Builds Flying Saucers" | November | 132-34 | |
| Reader's Digest | "Flying Saucers, New in Name Only" | July | 7-9 |
| Time | "Those Flying Saucers" | June | 54-56 |
| "Blips on the Scopes" | August | 40 | |
| "Something in the Air" | August | 58 | |
| "Theology of Saucers" | August | 62 | |
| "Wind is Up in Kansas" | September | 86 |
According to Ruppelt's account, the scoutmaster was an ex-Marine whose military and reformatory record led the Air Force investigators ultimately to write his story off as a hoax.
News media and the magazines continued to build up interest in the flying saucer stories. Table 2 is a partial tabulation of the treatment of the subject in the major magazines of America.
Project Grudge Report No. 6 reports the following concerning the public response to the articles in Life:
During the period of 3 April to 6 April approximately 350 daily newspapers in all parts of the United States carried some mention of the article and some mention of the fact that the Air Force was interested in receiving such reports.
It should be noted here that the conclusions reached by Life are not those of the Air Force. No proof exists that these objects are from outer space.
ATIC received approximately 110 letters in regard to the article. The letters are divided among those that offer theories as to the origin of the objects as well as those reporting objects. The letters offering theories comprise about 20 per cent of the total. Although it cannot be stated that the theories are incorrect, a majority of them cannot be further evaluated since they have very little scientific basis... The writers of these letters ranged from mystics to highly educated individuals... It has been reported that Life Magazine has received 700 letters in response to the article.
The subject was also beginning to attract journalistic attention in Europe, for example France Illustration of Paris published "Une Enigme Sous Nos Yeux" in its issue and "Soucoupes Volantes" on .
Table 1 indicates that the number of UFO reports in 1952 was some eight times the number for the previous two years. The investigation, however, continued to give no indication of a threat to national security, and no "hard evidence" for the truth of ETH.
Blue Book Report No. 8, dated , says that an astronomical consultant to the project had interviewed 44 professional astronomers as to their attitude on UFOs. He found their attitudes could be classified as
| Number | |
|---|---|
| Completely indifferent | 7 |
| Mildly Indifferent | 12 |
| Mildly Interested | 17 |
| Very Interested | 8 |
The Air Force's astronomical consultant commented:
Over 40 astronomers were interviewed, of [whom] five made sightings of one sort or another. This is a higher percentage than among the populace at large. Perhaps this is to be expected, since astronomers do, after all, watch the skies. On the other hand, they will not likely be fooled by balloons, aircraft, and similar objects, as may be the general populace.
It is interesting to remark upon the attitude of the astronomers interviewed. The great majority were neither hostile nor overly interested; they gave one the general feeling that all flying saucer reports could be explained as misrepresentations of well-known objects and that there was nothing intrinsic in the situation to cause concern. I took the time to talk rather seriously with a few of them, and to acquaint them with the fact that some of the sightings were truly puzzling and not at all easily explainable. Their interest was almost immediately aroused, indicating that their general lethargy is due to lack of information on the subject. And certainly another contributing factor to their desire not to talk about these things is their overwhelming fear of publicity. One headline in the nation's papers to the effect that "Astronomer Sees Flying Saucer" would be enough to brand the astronomer as questionable among his colleagues. Since I was able to talk with the men in confidence, I was able to gather very much more of their inner thoughts on the subject than a reporter or an interrogator would have been able to do. Actual hostility is rare; concern with their own immediate scientific problems is too great. There seems to be no convenient method by which problems can be attacked, and most astronomers do not wish to become involved, not only because of the danger of publicity but because the data seems tenuous and unreliable.