Just Cause - 1993 03 - No 35 - New Series

Magazine Overview

Title: JUST CAUSE
Issue: NUMBER 35
Date: March 1993
Publisher: Lawrence Fawcett
Editor: Barry Greenwood

This issue of JUST CAUSE delves into the significance of the "Pentacle Memo," a classified document that emerged during early UFO investigations. The magazine also examines historical UFO incidents and the reliability of official government files.

The Pentacle Memo: How Important?

The lead article focuses on the "Pentacle Memo," a document analyzed by author Jacques Vallee in his book "FORBIDDEN SCIENCE." The memo, dated January 9, 1953, was discovered in Dr. J. Allen Hynek's files and was classified "Secret-Security Information." It was addressed to Miles E. Coll for Captain Edward Ruppelt, recommending procedures for handling UFO reports sent to ATIC (Air Technical Intelligence Center) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Vallee, who nicknamed it "Pentacle" due to the lack of declassification, highlighted three key aspects:

1. Analysis of UFO Cases: The memo described a government analysis of thousands of UFO cases prior to its writing.
2. Coordination with Project Stork: It sought an agreement between ATIC and "Project Stork" on what could and could not be discussed at the upcoming Robertson Panel meetings.
3. Data Gathering Techniques: It recommended methods for collecting higher quality scientific information on UFOs.

"Project Stork" is explained as a code name for work done at the Battelle Memorial Institute, a think tank specializing in scientific matters. This project involved a statistical study of UFO reports for the Air Force, aiming to determine if the objects represented unknown technological developments. The study's culmination was "Project Blue Book Special Report 14," released in late 1955. The article notes that Report 14 concluded the probability of unknowns being "flying saucers" was extremely low.

Vallee's interpretation suggests the Pentacle document could be evidence of a government cover-up and the creation of "deliberate artificial UFO flaps" to manipulate belief systems. The article mentions that "UFO" magazine has referred to the document as a "smoking gun" for secret UFO studies beyond Blue Book.

The magazine's publisher, CAUS, has obtained a copy of the memo and offers its own analysis. While generally cautious about unverified government documents, CAUS makes an exception due to Dr. Vallee's credibility and the apparent lack of fraud in the document. Their paragraph-by-paragraph remarks include:

• Point 1: Acknowledges the memo's author, H.C. Cross, a Battelle staff member, proposing UFO handling procedures. It stresses that the recommendations were preliminary due to an ongoing study, noting that "several thousand reports were studied," which aligns with Blue Book statistics of over 2300 reports from June 1947 to December 1952. The article questions the need for a "secret study" if Blue Book's data was sufficient.
• Point 2: Notes Cross's concern that the CIA's Robertson Panel was convened before Project Stork's work was finished, deeming it improper and unscientific. The article suggests the panel's purpose was more political than scientific.
• Point 3: Addresses speculation that Stork was suppressing information. The memo itself is quoted as stating, "...there is a distinct lack of reliable data with which to work." and that even well-documented reports lack critical information for positive identification. The article argues this undermines claims of suppressed UFO secrets.

The issue also touches upon the "crashed saucers" topic, noting that documents often argue against physical UFO evidence. It questions why the Air Force would conduct a secret Battelle study if the results were poor and the Robertson Panel reached similar conclusions more quickly and cheaply.

• Point 4: Expresses pessimism about the usefulness of existing sighting data.
• Point 5: Details a "controlled experiment" proposal, similar to the earlier "Project Twinkle." Project Twinkle, coordinated by the Air Force's Cambridge Research Lab, aimed to gather data on "Green Fireball" phenomena in the southwestern U.S. from the late 1940s to early 1950s. A recurring issue was that sightings would cease once observation stations were set up. The article notes that Twinkle stations were equipped with cameras, telescopes, and theodolites, much like Pentacle later proposed. The program was eventually shelved due to technical problems, lack of fruitful results, and the difficulty of obtaining consistent evidence.

The article also discusses the Air Force's Videon camera network, set up in late 1952 to record spectra of light emissions from photographed sources. However, this program was also shelved due to technical issues with preserving diffraction gratings and a lack of fruitful results.

The authors disagree with Vallee's interpretation that the Pentacle memo suggests "deliberate artificial UFO flaps" created by the government. They argue that the memo describes a coordinated program to gather high-quality UFO information and suggests that the introduction of "secretly and purposefully" scheduled aerial activity was to test the system's ability to separate known from unknown phenomena, not to create hoaxes. Paragraph seven of Pentacle is cited, stating the experiment should prove the identity of all objects or determine those of unknown identity.

Regarding the "thousands" of sightings mentioned in Pentacle's final paragraph for the summer of 1952, the article clarifies that this likely refers to the general intensity of activity, not strictly Blue Book files, as Captain Edward Ruppelt estimated Blue Book received only about ten percent of total UFO sightings.

The article concludes that the Pentacle memo is an interesting look at early government UFO investigations but is not proof of a secret UFO study beyond what is known. It cautions against reading too much into the situation.

Can We Trust Official Files?

This section explores the reliability of government UFO files through the lens of a 1955 UFO incident over the Soviet Union, studied by UFO historian Loren Gross. The sighting involved former U.S. Senator Richard Russell and others on a train. Files from the FBI and CIA were examined.

The incident, dated October 4, 1955, described a triangular object, comparable in size to a jet fighter, with three lights, seen on the ground near an airfield. The object was ejected from its launching site, performed several spirals, and then ascended rapidly at a 45-degree angle. The object was tracked by searchlights and followed by a search plane.

Gross highlights that there are three distinct versions of this event available: Senator Russell's statements to the CIA's Herbert Scoville, a CIA report, and an Air Intelligence Information Report by Lt. Col. T. Ryan based on an interview with witness Lt. Col. E.U. Hathaway. Gross has documented numerous instances where the "facts" differ significantly.

The article suggests that the reasons for these discrepancies might be that the facts were altered according to the particular theory of explanation favored by the source agency. The Ryan version supports an unexplained, disc-shaped craft, while the CIA version suggests a high-performance Soviet aircraft. Scoville, in his interview with Russell, believed the lights could have been conventional jets, rejecting the idea of a saucer-shaped or unconventional aircraft.

The article posits that while simple misreporting or distortion of facts is possible, it is unlikely that U.S. intelligence would consistently misrepresent hard information on a brief set of details. It also questions whether witnesses changed their stories, noting they seemed unsure of what they saw. The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee would likely ensure accurate reporting.

The disturbing conclusion is raised that government UFO files, particularly those based on single sources, may not be entirely trustworthy. The article advises caution against being absolute in this subject.

Full details of Gross's analysis are available in his "UFOs: A HISTORY: 1955 SEPTEMBER 15TH to DECEMBER 31ST."

Final Notes

The editors neglected to thank Ed Komarek for his "Common Cause" article in the previous issue. They announce plans for several historical pieces, including a new look at the 1952 UFO wave, questioning whether those sightings were as out-of-control as commonly believed or if the Air Force had a better handle on them than previously thought.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of government UFO documents and investigations, the potential for secrecy and cover-ups, and the challenges of obtaining reliable data on anomalous aerial phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious skepticism, emphasizing the need for rigorous analysis and questioning official narratives, while also cautioning against over-interpretation of limited evidence. The magazine highlights the importance of historical context and the discrepancies found in official reports, suggesting that a critical approach is necessary when evaluating UFO phenomena and government involvement.