3,681 total views, 3 views today
Chapter Six: Project Sign, Grudge and Bluebook (1947-1969)
Some historical researchers have claimed that it is the ‘reverse engineered’ alien technology which is why governments kept the secrecy all these years. Others have suggested that the concept of ‘Unidentified Flying Objects’ (UFOs) posing a threat to national security is key to the secrecy. Some simply maintained that society couldn’t handle the revelation of knowing there is an non-human intelligence here on Earth. Ultimately, we don’t know the real reasons why they shut the issue down and buried it in the years 1947 through to 1969. All we know is that UFOs were blacklisted indefinitely. By the end of 1969, the issue fell into a void which lasted thirty-nine years until 2008 and the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Application Program (AAWSAP) followed by the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) which would eventually help form modern day UAP programs. The 21st Century rebranding of UFOs in 2017 to ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ and then in 2022 to our very own ‘Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena’ (UAP) was a key strategic move. Shifting terminology and allowing open progressive conversation to occur moved us past those mid-20th Century stigma.
Some researchers have made a compelling argument that the United States Airforce (USAF) knew exactly what these objects were and even took active steps to ensure the entire issue was buried, and this is what we will consider in this chapter. If we consider the reality of such a phenomenon, we must also consider that our military and intelligence agencies would have been able to detect the anomalous within our skies and should have provided briefings to the executive branches of governments. Arguably, if such sensitive data was withheld from Congress and Parliament in the mid-20th Century then surely that was a failure within the democratic process of western civilisation.
We the people, must have the information to decide how to proceed and determine our future. But what if that really did happen the way some UFO historians such as Richard Dolan have claimed? What if there was a cover-up? How might that have occurred? Researcher Dolan has argued that the effort to obfuscate UFO data started in the early1950s – a bottle necked process by which classified information is syphoned off. Ideally, from the outside the efforts present as though they are following the scientific process, however underneath the effort is flawed by an unethical exclusion parameter design. One might make the case that he conclusions of the USAF, the Condon report, and the Robertson Panel (1) amounted to scientific negligence that bordered on a whitewash. Again, we would advise readers to consider the work of the historian Richard Dolan and others who write at length about this issue (2).
The UFO cover-up
For there to be a ‘UFO cover-up’, it means that the entire issue was lifted from public knowledge and placed into classification. The United States (U.S.) military and other countries as well, actively supressed information which would suggest that ‘Flying Discs’ were real and truly anomalous in nature. The issue has been taken from the hands of Congressional oversight committees and placed somewhere by which the executive government branches have no ability to act – private defense contractors. It is a murky area – how much is ‘conspiracy’ and how much is simply classification is not yet known. What we can do, is that the alleged cover-up stems back to the early 1950s.
The Robertson Panel: 14-18th of January, 1953
The July Washington D.C. incursions of 1952 really posed a problem for any Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or USAF group who wished to slowly dilute the problem of UFOs. Those same UFOs infiltrating North American skies – post WW2 – that didn’t respond to communication. Whatever they were, whoever they were, they were considered a huge threat by the USAF on principle as they could not be shot down. And that is what happened in the summer of 1952 – unidentified threats of unknown origin engaged the most sensitive areas of America’s democracy. Stalking sensitive testing facilities and nuclear bombing ranges was bad enough, but to have the anomalous swarm appear right over the capital of the United States was unthinkable. They had become very real in that incursion, no longer a distant military problem, but a very difficult existential and political problem to deal with. An overt threat to national security. The consequence meant that new life was breathed into Project Grudge, who reformed under a new name after pressure once again increased thanks to the 1952 Washington wave. The problematic Washington incursions of July meant the USAF/CIA would need a bigger, more robust strategy to dismiss away the entire phenomena as nothing more than ‘seagulls’, ‘weather balloons’ and ‘hoaxes’ – if that is what they intended to do. A secret CIA backed panel – called the Robertson Panel – was briefed in early 1953 on U.S. military activities and intelligence matters from that time, as first reported by Project Bluebook Director, Edward Ruppelt (3).
The original report was officially classified as secret, but then it was declassified later. In the end, the Robertson Panel’s final report concluded that UFOs were not a direct threat to national security (somehow unidentifiable disc shaped objects which were able to perform advanced technological capabilities and entered protected aerospace, even fly over the United States Capitol, are not a direct threat to national security in the nuclear Cold War – nuclear threat, era). Of course, this conclusion was absolutely unthinkable to take seriously. Thankfully, despite some gross negligence on a historic level, they did state that UFOs could pose an indirect threat by overwhelming standard military communications due to increased public interest in the subject. The Robertson panel concluded that most UFO reports, could be explained as misidentifications of explainable aerial objects, and the remaining minority could be explained further with more investigation (2).
However, this was not the end. People were not satisfied that the explanations conclusively fit the data. From rural farmers to major city sightings, the very same anomalous phenomena were continuing to appear in our atmosphere, and by the mid-1950s, the pressure was again mounting on the USAF for real answers. Even back in the early 1950s the multiple military pilot and civilian reports tended to contradict such mundane explanations. And this was a problem for the USAF – the reports kept coming year after year, decade after decade. The anomalous phenomena were outperforming fighter planes and even interfering with nuclear weapons and appearing at nuclear test sites (see the now famous AATIP Directors resignation letter). Something needed to be done.
The United States Airforce UFO Programs 1947 was a massive UFO wave year. For the first time we saw widespread acknowledgement and widely reported cases. Whilst previous historical anomalous waves had occurred, this was the first time the public’s focus and attention was captured. This was also the first time in history we collectively thought ‘extra-terrestrial’ at the subconscious level, and in a way that genuinely considered they might be here. The sheer volume of reports, and clear distinction of ‘Flying Discs’ alongside other un-aerodynamically shaped vehicles ensured that the government had to act. To address the growing pressure and issue of the UFO epidemic, the United States government created three distinct programs in concession to officially and ‘openly’ investigate the phenomena. Additionally, the terminology was later changed from ‘Flying Saucer’ to ‘Unidentified Flying Objects’, arguably to increase the uncertainty around public perceptions of ‘non-human’ technology.
A UFO could be anything from a balloon to a misidentified cloud, whereas a ‘Flying Saucer/Disc’ on the other hand was distinct and very much non-human technology or extra-terrestrial. Managing the social psychology was paramount to controlling the narrative. As much as you might disagree with the ethical conduct of developing and maintaining secrecy on such an important topic, you also have to appreciate the brilliance of the psychology used. This is no more evident than the change of terminology applied over the years.
Project Sign (Saucer): 1947-1948
Project Sign was the very first effort in history to be established officially by the United states government and certainly wouldn’t be the last. Lasting only a year, the official U.S. government project that was tasked with investigating ‘Flying Saucers’. Even the original title of the very first government effort was called ‘Saucer’ on the basis of the reports being compiled to the government. Following the significant 1947 UFO wave form June to July of that year, public pressure grew on the government to provide some answers to the mystery. ‘If they were aliens from Mars, the world needed to know’, was the postion taken. The official project was undertaken by the USAF and was active for most of the year 1948. Project Sign’s final report, published in early 1949, stated that while some UFOs appeared to represent physical aircraft, there was simply not enough tangible data to determine their origin. Of the three USAF programs that studied UFOs, it was Sign that was the most sympathetic to the non-human explanation.
Project Grudge: 1949-1951
Project Grudge was another short-lived project by the USAF to investigate UFOs and all but concluded that most sightings could be explained as balloons, conventional aircraft, planets, meteors, optical illusions, and solar reflections. Grudge succeeded Project Sign in February, 1949, and was then followed by Project Bluebook in 1952. The project formally ended in December 1949 but continued in a minimal capacity until late 1951. Project Grudge released just one report in August 1949. The report’s conclusions included:
A). 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.
B). All evidence and analyses indicate that reports of unidentified flying objects are the result of:
1/. Misinterpretation of various conventional objects.
2/. A mild form of mass-hysteria and war nerves.
3/. Individuals who fabricate such reports to perpetrate a hoax or to seek publicity.
4/. Psychopathological persons.
The ‘Recommendations’ section suggested that Air Force personnel receive basic instruction in astronomical phenomena. The author of the Grudge Report even documents that Captain Thomas F. Mantell, a Kentucky Air National Guard pilot, died in the crash of his P-51 Mustang fighter plane near Franklin, Kentucky, United States, after chasing down the planet Venus. However, no mention is made about the multiple reports of a westbound circular object, 250–300 feet (80–90 m) in diameter with a red border at the bottom. Later Project Bluebook would reclassify the object as a weather balloon.
The Project Grudge Report (1949) included some 300 case incidents, however, failed to give a description of the incidents in each case, or any details around the objects. What they did included was their crude assessment of whether the reported object was either a weather balloon or an astronomical phenomena. The entire report was unobjectively biased and a complete whitewash. Most bizarrely, the author of the report both addresses and dismisses the possibilities that UFOs are ‘Martians’ – and whether they have come from Mars using linear rocket propulsion not to dissimilar to human understanding of potential spaceflight in the mid-20th century. This report may seem humorous for us now looking back, given that we know more about Mars, spaceflight and hypothetical warp-technology, however the serious element is that these types of flawed 20th century reports determined legislation about UAP for over 50 years.
Project Bluebook: 1952-1969 Project
Bluebook was the next effort in a series of systematic government studies regarding UFOs that was conducted and regulated by the USAF. It started in 1952 after a significant UFO wave swept across America, climaxing with the Washington incursions that prompted answers from the military. Bluebook was the third study of its kind (the first two were projects Sign/Saucer, 1947, and Grudge, 1949). A termination order was given for the project in December 1969 after the Condon report investigation. All activity for the project ceased in January 1970. Bluebook was criticised for its lack of scientific objectivity with many feeling that the entire study was set up to fail and a publicity stunt for congress.
Managing the psychology of awareness
Prior to the more recent ‘UFO’ programs – AATIP and AAWSAP (2007-2017) – the USAF and other agencies had historically claimed they United States government was no longer investigating the issue of anomalous aerial vehicles. When the three USAF programs (Sign, Grudge and Bluebook) closed in 1969 after running for 22 years, the issue was instantly relegated to fringe conspiracy. For 50 years no one could get funded, no one was taken seriously, and no academic institutions would look into their research and data on UFOs. The entire issue was managed into oblivion. with the public being led to believe the issue of anomalous phenomena wasn’t real.
Project Bluebook came to an end after it was officially declared that UFOs posed no threat to national security. And this is an important point that many old guard Ufology types don’t like to admit – that the ‘threat narrative’ is the key to whether or not the government is legally responsible to engage investigation of UAP. For if an unknown anomalous technology exists, and is here within our skies and oceans, then that would be considered a potential threat (regardless of whether they are or not). Dismissing the threat narrative is a very effective strategy for playing down importance and awareness of the general public.
Unfortunately, some Ufologists have been manipulated into thinking the threat narrative itself is part of some bizarre false flag conspiracy. Some have argued that various disinformation agents from the early 2000s and beyond, went to a lot of effort to implant this particular conspiracy storyline within Ufology.
Essentially, by dismissing the ‘threat narrative’ it meant that should one day a small breakaway group from within DoD, with access to data and materials, try to engage congress and the public sphere – then they wouldn’t be supported by Ufology due to the pushback against the all-important threat narrative. Instead of supporting the cause, the paranoid Ufologists would therefore accuse any disclosure efforts as being part of that same imbedded conspiracy.
Without the support of hundreds of thousands of Ufologists, the pressure wouldn’t be put on the system and the efforts would be attacked. Game over. Conspiracy was used very effectively, as activists found out directly after trying to gather support for engaging congress using the threat narrative approach. In fact, the small DoD group of mercenary activists in 2017 onwards trying to leak UAP videos and push UAP transparency became the very enemy of Ufology. A few well-crafted aversion techniques that played to UFO-types fears and it became self-sustaining. This aversion strategy is decades old. He who controls the spin on the threat narrative controls the disclosure discourse. Take the U.K. Condign report (2000), which again dismissed any future Ministry of Defence (MOD) investigation due to a lack of a threat to national security. The MOD borrowed this concept from the 1968 Condon report conclusions – the same methodology which closed down government interest.
The Condon Committee report
The infamous Condon Committee was actually the informal name of the University of Colorado UFO Project. These were a group funded by the United States Airforce from 1966 to 1968 at the University of Colorado to study UFOs under the direction of the now famous physicist Edward Condon. The study was formally titled, ‘Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects’ (6), and known as the ‘Condon Report’, appeared in 1968 as stated earlier. The findings were that no ‘UFO’ ever reported and investigated by the USAF had ever indicated a threat to national security. Arguably, this is accurate from the potential snapshot data in their holdings that none of the unknowns were overtly hostile towards humans (at least not on a large scale). However, when we consider what DoD believes to be a threat, we must consider intent vs. behaviour vs. capability. And again, the threat narrative is key. The potential threat is what determines whether the military take UAP serious as a genuinely anomalous phenomenon and therefore also equates to whether the people take the issues seriously. Buried within our collective subconscious, we know that if some external intelligence arrived here on Earth, it would be treated seriously by the world’s military forces as a first point of contact. The potential threat is assessed by them and from there we move forward. If the world’s military, the DoD, the USAF and others, state that there is no threat associated to UFOs, then it also says to us civilians that there is equally nothing to the phenomena – there are no UFOs. Which essentially is what the Airforce did in 1969.
No evidence of advanced technology
The Condon report also provided a conclusion that ‘no evidence’ had been found to suggest that unidentified reports represented a technology that was unknown by modern day scientific knowledge. This is the most problematic conclusive statement which is provided and is inherently false. Firstly, we can ask what exactly constitutes ‘evidence’? Does the military and civilian report testimony within Project Bluebook’s files not count as ‘evidence’ of advanced anomalous technology? Does the multiple reports of ‘Flying Discs’ not count as advanced technology? And if not, why not?
We can highlight how the poor methodology approach used within the Condon report completely syphons off the potential for anomalous technology (which we will discuss later in this chapter), via the clever and yet intellectually dishonest constructed research. Essentially, any objective, holistic study would have identified the various technological categories that we have identified ourselves through the five AATIP observables – ‘low observability’, ‘trans-medium travel’, ‘hypersonic velocity’, ‘anti-gravity’ and ‘instantaneous acceleration’. And yet there are no subsections or statistics within Bluebook, or the USAF sponsored Condon report which incorporated and accounted for such advanced technologies. They didn’t find anything because they purposely didn’t look. Finally, the Condon report states that there was ‘no evidence’ that the ‘unidentified’ case reports were extra-terrestrial vehicles (6). Our issue with this statement would be based around ‘what constitutes evidence of extra-terrestrials’. What radar data is provided alongside each individual case within Bluebook to corroborate whether or not these UFOs were leaving orbit (and even then, how can we take that as a conclusive indication of extra-terrestrials).
If we are to assume that the reported ‘Flying Discs’ are extra-terrestrial in origin, where is the supportive data to determine origin and destination? When we look back through case reports within Bluebook, there is no additional data to suggest that these objects are extra-terrestrial, and also, there is no data to suggest that ‘Flying Discs’ are not extra-terrestrials either. The statistical data is narrow, fixed to a static position and certainly not attempting to understand what witnesses were encountering. And yet the conclusions of Condon state firmly there is ‘no evidence’ of extra-terrestrials without adding the very critical point that they didn’t have the relevant data to rule it out either. From a holistic perspective, the entire report suffers with intellectual dishonesty and narrative building – there is a conclusion in place prior to investigation and the entire report is orientated around getting to that conclusion.
The consequences
The following January of 1969, The New York Times ran an article titled, ‘U.F.O. finding: No visits from afar’ (5) that dismissed the extra-terrestrial hypothesis based on the findings of the Condon report. In the article, scientific critics were labelled as ‘enthusiasts of UFOs’, and the stigma began. The age of the UFOs was over. Let it be noted that these three conclusions within Project Bluebook along with the Condon Committee formulated the decision to officially end research funding of projects into UFOs. This is historical fact and will serve as a benchmark for the lack of official UFO research in those dark decades. After that fact the topic became lost to fringe and second rail science. Documentation regarding the former Bluebook investigation was transferred over to the modern military branch, the National Archives and Records Services. The files are available online through various companies and a quick scout through the files reveals there is something interesting in the testimony and data.
Criticisms of the methodology and conclusions
The conclusions of the Condon report do not match what is reported in the Bluebook case files, specifically case report #14. In fact, they directly contradict the final conclusions, the same conclusions that shut down Bluebook and ended the world’s credible interest in UFOs was false. It was sneaky debunker pseudo-science, the type you would expect our favourite YouTube pseudo-debunker to pull off and get away with because the psychology of stigma strengthens their argument. Time after time, historical research shows military and civilian cases of ‘Flying Discs’, and other strange lights defy obvious explanation, whose reported abilities defy any known human technology of that time period (or even now). And yet these cases have been dismissed through a needlessly convoluted unscientific process that from the outside only appeared to ‘muddy the waters’. For anybody applying the sceptical approach, one must also apply such close attention to the Condon conclusions with regard to data analysis and how they completely sidestepped report #14.
For starters: Special report #14 looked over some 3200 cases and labelled them either ‘known’ or ‘unknown’ or ‘insufficient information.’ The ‘knowns’ and ‘unknowns’ marked down from excellent to poor – cases categorised as ‘excellent’ would involve experienced witnesses such trained military and airline pilots, multiple civilian or military witnesses with some form of corroborating evidence such as radar data or photographs. Even within report #14 the marking criteria was always categorised in favour of a terrestrial explanation. Also, as we look over the report (5), the 3200 cases were broken down into six different characteristics by the Battelle scientists. These were characterised into ‘colour’, ‘number’, ‘duration of observation’, ‘brightness’, ‘shape’, and ‘speed’ which were then catalogued between ‘knowns’ and ‘unknowns’ to see if there was a statistically significant outcome. A major problem was that in order for a case to be categorised as ‘known’, only two data analysts had to independently agree on an outcome for that case. But, for a case to be categorised as an ‘unknown’, all four data analysts had to agree on the outcome.
This is quite astonishing.
This isn’t a scientific process which seeks out objective truth, this is stacking the cards in a certain favour, influencing the conclusions. Additionally, labelling something conclusively as ‘unknown’ from the start is quite unambiguous, it generalises anything anomalous under a category which may be classed as uninteresting – when it might not be. Genuine reports of ‘Flying Discs’ then have the potential to be falsely associated together with mundane objects such as balloons and birds etc, that probably could be identified with more data. The result of this is that ‘unknowns’ have the potential to be looked-over and downplayed. Suddenly the media and public are talking ‘unknowns’ instead of ‘Flying Discs’ and nobody is talking about the advanced technology displayed. This trick, and it was a trick, is still used today by Pentagon spokespersons who use the classification ‘Unidentified’, rather than ‘Flying Disc,’ or ‘Tic-Tac’, which bring directed awareness to the anomalous phenomena. An honest Condon investigation methodology should have identified each ‘unknown’ aerial vehicle shape by its own defined category (aka, Flying Disc, Tic-Tac, Cube, Pyramid, Triangle, etc), thus as a hallmark of that scientific conclusion and bringing attention to those report collections. Essentially, they don’t do this. They switched focus away from the hundreds and hundreds of ‘Flying Disc’ reports – which clearly indicate anomalous phenomena and the advanced anomalous technology. A poor methodology and report was applied that faced no peer review research, no scrutiny from the scientific community, and was completed in a way which suited those who were funding the investigation, the United States Airforce.
Despite the debatable use of syphoning information within an objective research study, the main results of the statistical analysis from #14 were quite hard to take. The data found that 69% of all cases were determined to be ‘known’ or identified. Then only 9% were due to ‘insufficient data’, and the final 22% fell within the ‘unknown’ category. With regard to the ‘known’ category, a massive 86% of the ‘knowns’ would turn out to be balloons, aircraft or celestial explanations. Only a small 1.5% were determined to be psychological explanations. Hoaxes came under ‘miscellaneous’ and made up 8%. It was assessed that the significantly higher quality of case, the more likely it was to be determined as ‘unknown’. Additionally, 35% of the higher quality cases were categorised as ‘unknowns’, in direct contrast to only 18% of the lower quality cases. Critics of the UFO reality tried to argue that report #14 proved that the phenomena wasn’t real, stating that the ‘unknowns’ would be identified as ‘knowns’ with more data. Again, this was arguably a poor scientific claim, given that as the official conclusions show, there is a distinction between ‘knowns’ and ‘unknowns’ by a high statistical significance. But yes, we must agree to accept that none of this suggests some non-human technology by design of the flawed methodology. ‘Unknowns’ by definition are not symbolic of extra-terrestrials.
The Low Memo, 1966
In the July of 1967, a gentleman by the name of James E. McDonald had learned from a committee member about a memo that had been written the previous year on August 9, 1966. As detailed by Harkins and Saunders (7), the ‘Low Memorandum’ detailed how Mr. Low had reassured two University of Colorado administrators that they could expect the study to demonstrate that UFO observations had no basis in reality. Historian Richard Nolan’s coverage of this is very compelling and well worth an in-depth review of what occurred. He notes a few important points about the objectivity of the report. Additionally, in late January 1967, Condon himself was reportedly quoted by the Elmira-Star Gazette in which he said in a lecture that he thought the government should not study UFOs because the subject was ‘nonsense’, adding that he wasn’t supposed to reach such a conclusion for another year (2). For anyone who has worked in professional research before, they will recognise this as is intellectually dishonest. You do not start with a conclusion and work backwards, that is not how science works. However, objective science seemed to be low on the list.
The gaping hole left from Bluebook’s conclusions
Bluebook’s Special Report No. #14 contradicted the official conclusions of the Condon Committee. Special Report No. #14 suggested further investigation was required into the significant ‘unknown’ element. This, however, was seemingly not in the plans of committee leader Edward Condon and the board members who seemed to have a narrative already in place ahead of time. This doesn’t mean those involved were part of a secret conspiracy, but it does mean that significant researcher bias could have played a part in the process. In any case, the closure of Bluebook was what killed UFOs for the next generation and the one after that. Academia and the scientific community did not take the subject seriously and instead UFO research was left to well-meaning amateurs. But amateurs all the same. The field of ‘Ufology’ was a wild west of confabulated half-truths from profiteers selling snake oil to those wanting to buy it. Tales of space aliens and ‘insiders’ is common with no real way to establish validity. The official withdrawal from investigation has left a gaping hole to which conspiracy was born and nurtured. Not that there aren’t good, thoughtful researchers in the field such as David Marler, Richard Dolan or Stanton Friedman, etc. Without the UFO researcher, 50 years of good data would not exist. We look to the likes of MUFON and others as an example. Data needs to be collected and analysed professionally, appropriately and without bias.
◆◆◆
Conclusions
Project Bluebook was a success for the Airforce – if their intentions were to successfully prove that a scientific investigation had run through the process and then concluded there was nothing to the UFO case reports. My personal feelings are that some in the Airforce and elsewhere wanted the problem of UFOs to go away. Whether they believed them to be extra-terrestrials or whether they saw them as a whole ‘bunch of baloney’ and ‘nonsense’ is undetermined. Poor methodological research was applied in a way which meant the recommendations were only ever going to reach one conclusion, and that wasn’t in favour of anomalous technology. Either way, the closure of Bluebook ended the topic of UFOs for the general public for over 50 years. It wouldn’t be until the emergence of AATIP and the UAP revolution in late 2017, would the world once again reconsider the prospect of non-human intelligences, here on Earth. No matter how it was played out, what occurred in the Condon report will not be forgotten by future generations.
◆◆◆
References
(1). Greenewald, J. Report of Meetings of Scientific Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects Convened by Office of Scientific Intelligence, CIA. | The Black Vault. Available at: https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/robertsonpanelreport.pdf [Accessed 9 Nov. 2022].
(2). Dolan, R. (2001). UFOs and the National Security State. | Keyhole Publishing Company.
(3). Ruppelt, E. (1956). The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. | Cosimo Classics. New York.
(4). Internet Archive: United States Airforce. (1954). ‘Project Blue Book Special Report #14.’ | Archive.Org. https://archive.org/details/ProjectBlueBookSpecialReport14 [Accessed 10 Nov. 2022].
(5). Sullivan, W. (1969). U.F.O. Finding: No Visits From Afar. | The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1969/01/08/archives/u-f-o-finding-no-visits-from-afar-ufo-finding-no-visits-from-afar.html [Accessed 09 Nov. 2022].
(6). Condon, E. (1969). Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. | E.P. Dutton.
(7). Harkins, D., and Saunders, R. (1968). UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon committee went wrong. | Signet Books.
◆◆◆
