January 1966 Issue of “True Magazine.”
Comments on this article can be divided into three principle sections:
(A) The UFO sightings quoted by Keyhoe as evidence for unusual maneuvers.
(B) Reference to government projects on antigravity.
(C) Lack of knowledge of physics exibited by Keyhoe.
(A) This office is handicapped in commenting on the eleven cases mentioned by Keyhoe as evidence for the existence of craft whose maneuverability cannot be attained by known propulsion systems. Only two of these cases have been reported to the Air Force. Under the present operating regulations, this office is not authorized to investigate cases not officially reported through channels. If the UFO phenomenon is to be treated as a scientific problem then all data should be considered. It has often been the recommendation of this consultant that the operating policies be altered to allow the investigation of UFO sightings reported through the Press, popular magazines and by private citizens who report sightings to private organizations, such as NICAP (which organizations sometimes, have been given to understand, actively suggest that reports be made to them rather than to the Air Force because of the alleged superficial and negative attitude of the Air Force toward such sightings) and many others in this and other countries. A scientist deprived of the majority of the data relative to a problem would obviously be seriously handicapped in treating that problem as a whole.
Here, in a national magazine of considerable circulation, Keyhoe gives as evidence eleven cases, of which nine are not in the Air Force files! None the less, we will take them in turn, as presented by Keyhoe.
1. February 15, 1965
Sighting made by the crev of the Flying Tiger aircraft on route US to Japan. Passengers reportedly included a military group including an Air Force captain. Said captain, according to Keyhoe, confirmed the sighting and submitted a signed report to Keyhoe. We have no report on file in this office either of the Flying Tiger incident or of the report allegedly made by the Air Force captain. When this report originally and unofficially came to the attention of this office through the medium of an article in a NICAP publication, it would have been prudent, if for files protection alone, had this office been authorized to make discreet inquiries of Flying Tiger officials as to the authenticity of the sighting now given great prominence by Keyhoe. At the present, we in this office simply do not know even whether the incident took place or, if it did, under what circumstances, and whether a logical normal explanation can be made of it.
2. December 21, 1954 Staunton, Virginia
This case was reported to the Air Force but the investigation did not include interrogation of the so-called Dupont scientists. However, his report on radioactivity is definitely not in accord with the Geiger counter readings made by Sgt. Moody nine days after the reported incident. It is clear that if the radioactivity was as high as reported nine days after the sighting, then on 11 January there should have been very definitely detectable radioactivity. After due investigation, the entire Staunton incident is regarded as unreliable and suspect.
3. December 26, 1954
Rome Air Force Base radar supposedly reported two large discs, pursued by A4D jets following which the discs “accelerated to terrific speed.” Despite the report originating from an Air Force base, the matter was never officially reported to this office. We do not know whether any took place. We are again handicapped by not being able to categorically refute this bold statement by Keyhoe.
4. March 21, 1965
“Mysterious, elliptical, luminous object” reportedly chased a Toa Airline Convair in Japan. This obviously would not have been reported to the U. S. Air Force, and thus nothing can be said about the validity of this report.
5. July 1, 1954
Keyhoe states that when the pilot of an F-94 scranbling (sic) to chase a UFO near Walesville, New York, reportedly tried to close in, “a sudden unbearable heat filled the cockpit.” The officer bailed out and the jet crashed into the street, killing two children and their parents. This case is not carried in the Air Force UFO files. Information derived from newspaper accounts state that the F 94-C was sent up on a confidential air defense intercept mission. The aircraft identified the intercepted plane and was returning to base when the accident occurred. The incident is probably carried in the aircraft accident records.
6. An undated “official Air Force intelligence report” reportedly states that “groups of small UFOs, flying 5,240 mph, were seen and tracked by the crew of a B-29. These small UFOs were seen to merge with or go aboard a huge carrier which accelerated to more than 9,000 mph before it disappeared.” This office has no record of this case. Here, obviously, the burden of proof in this, as in the other eight reported cases, rests with the author. It is doubtful that he would supply these as he reportedly has failed to co-operate with the Air Force in this respect.
7. This is a mere allusion to “a documented case at White SandsProving Ground, where Navy scientists saw and tracked a UFO flying at 18,000 mph.” Actually such an allusion to an undocumented case has no validity in establishing the existance of craft that defy gravity.
8. January 12, 1965
Keyhoe states that “flying disc 30 feet in diameter hurtled down” at an automobile driven by a Federal law enforcement official near Blane Air Force Station. The officer reportedly jumped out, saw the UFO hovering overhead and, after a minute, it reputedly shot up into the clouds at high speed. The officer was reported to have said that “they had tracked the UFO by radar as it raced down toward his car.” The antecedent of “they” is apparently the Air Force, a large organization. He states that this officer was warned by his superiors not to let his name be used in connection with the sighting. What superios? (sic)
9. January 27, 1965
Two NASA engineers reputedly sighted a UFO which touch landed near Hampton, Virginia. This is one of two cases in which Keyhoe uses names of witnesses (Major John Nadley and Mr. A. G. Crimmins) who are quoted as stating that a rapidly rotating disc appeared to be “zigzagging as it was searching for a landing spot.”
10. January 11, 1965 Washing (sic) D. C.
An Army Lt. Colonel and a group of Army communication specialists allegedly saw Air Force jets pursuing several flying objects over the city. Nothing more is said of this case, of which no record exists in Air Force files.
11. January 5, 1965 Wallops Island, Virginia
Dempsey Bruton, “chief of satellite tracing (sic) at NASA's Wallops Island station,” supposedly saw a strange round object flying toward the station at a terrific speed which shot straight up out of sight after passing overhead. Bruton is quoted as saying that its speed was definitely “several thousand miles per hour, possibly 8,000 mph or even higher.”
These eleven cases, taken at face value, would imply that we were faced with craft capable of performance far beyond that of conventional craft. The burden of proof is, of course, on Keyhoe. Certainly the evidence as presented in the article would not hold a drop of water before a scientific tribunal.
(B) Keyhoe states that U. S. Government has set up 46 different research projects on aspects of control gravity. He is not specific. Any guidance system for milliles (sic) or spacecraft is a gravity control device. He does not state whether any of these projects have to do with circumventing or anihilating the effects of gravity. I, personally, do not know of any bonafide antigravity projects or any on the use of “gravity shields” a la H. G. Wells etc. It would have been enlightening had Keyhoe mentioned the title even of a few of the unclassified projects. To the best of my knowledge, Einstein's treatment of gravity is still the only cogent theoretical approach. Throughout the article, Keyhoe exibits much loose thinking with physical principles. For instance he states that the Earth's gravity field is relatively weak compared with the pull of gravity between planets and the sun. In point of face, (sic) the sun's gravity field in the neighborhood of the Earth is more than 100 times weaker than the Earth's gravity field.
He also states there is a connection between gravity and electromagnetic fields. To the very best of my knowledge there is no connection whatever. In fact, this would be cause for the granting of several Nobel prizes were someone to establish this.
(C) Finally, Keyhoe exibits his ignorance of the laws of motion by implying that a craft which is propelled by an antigravity mechanism can make instant right angle turns which he says, correctly, are “impossible for any known aircraft.” Unless Sir Isaac Newton is totally wrong, F is still equal to ma (F=ma) and making instant right angle turns is impossible for any aircraft, known or not if it has any appreciable mass. For, even in “gravity free” space a right angle turn implies virtual infinite acceleration, and thus an infinite force. An antigravity field, even if this were possible, does not imply excessive forces.
Keyhoe's argument is based on the reality and validity of the eleven cases he cites as evidence. Since they are not documented in any acceptable sense they have no scientific validity. While it is true that it is not within the province of the Air Force to disprove claims made by Keyhoe and other groups, it appears that it would be wise, if the UFO phenomenon remains, in the bailiwick of the Air Force, to have a small selected number of incidents not reported to the Air Force be investigated to provide “files protection” for possible future contengencies. (sic) Such cases would be selected from those given prominence in the Press – those cases which it is surmised might be referred to frequently in the future by writers of the ilk of Keyhoe.