Just Cause - 1993 09 - No 37 - New Series

Magazine Overview

Title: JUST CAUSE
Issue Date: September 1993
Publisher: CAUS (Citizens Against UFO Secrecy)
Issue Number: 37
Price: $15 US, $20 Foreign

This issue of Just Cause focuses on the acquisition of lost Project Blue Book records and delves into the controversial Pentacle Memo, featuring contributions from prominent figures in the UFO research community.

Lost Blue Book Records Surface

The lead article announces that CAUS has acquired a substantial collection of Project Blue Book information not previously held by the National Archives. This acquisition includes thirty-two rolls of 35mm microfilm from the Air Force's 1952 clipping service, a project initiated by Captain Edward Ruppelt, former head of Blue Book. The collection also contains other microfilm rolls and hardcopy materials related to Project Sign (Blue Book's predecessor) and the 1960s Condon Committee. Professor Herbert Strentz, formerly with the University of Colorado's Condon Committee, is credited with making this information available.

The story behind the acquisition dates back to the summer of 1967, when Strentz visited Project Blue Book headquarters at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. During a meeting with Colonel Hector Quintanilla, then head of Blue Book, it was discovered that personnel were discarding "unnecessary material." Strentz, who was researching UFO press coverage for his doctoral dissertation at the time, requested and saved these materials. His dissertation was later published as "A Survey of Press Coverage of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1947-1966."

The saved materials include the April-September 1952 press clippings, public letters reacting to a April 7, 1952 Life magazine article titled "Have We Visitors from Outer Space?", reels of Project Sign summaries (cases 1-72 and 172-237), and two rolls titled "Varied UFO, First Part" and "1965 El Toro," which appear to be prepared for the Condon Committee and cover high-interest cases. A newsreel film titled "Camera Headlines" by Telenews is also included.

In total, CAUS has acquired approximately 32,000 pages of 1952 UFO press coverage and 8,000 pages of other records from the early years of UFO history. These materials should have been part of the National Archives but became separated in 1967. Captain Edward Ruppelt, in his 1956 book "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects," described the clipping service's purpose: to show publicity levels, what was being said, provide data, uncover missed reports, and study the effect of publicity on UFO reports.

The clipping service began in March 1952 and initially sent clippings in thin, letter-sized envelopes. As the volume increased, thicker manila envelopes were used, eventually leading to the use of old shoe boxes and then large cardboard cartons by June 1952 due to a "big flap."

The service was discontinued because Blue Book ran out of room. The originals were likely destroyed when the Blue Book records were transferred to the National Archives in 1976, but the entire lot was microfilmed by December 1952, as indicated by the "Develop Before December 1952" labels on the microfilm boxes. These were kept at Blue Book for fifteen years before being released to Strentz.

The issue also lists the labels for the thirty-two microfilm boxes, indicating date ranges from May/June to September 1952, with some specific dates and locations like Nash Fort.

Project Sign Case Summaries and Additional Clippings

The Project Sign case summaries are also noted as significant, having been sought by CAUS for years. It is explained that some reels were given to Strentz, while others may have been destroyed. Professor Strentz also provided an additional clipping collection of 4,000 clips covering 1961-66, which was part of the Condon Committee's private collection used in his dissertation.

The article concludes by noting the increasing difficulty in finding government UFO records, especially those separated from their original agencies, and CAUS's ongoing efforts to unearth such materials.

More on Pentacle

This section addresses reactions to a previous "Pentacle article" from the March 1993 issue. Two notable reactions are presented: one from Dr. Jacques Vallee and another from an anonymous Battelle Memorial Institute staffer.

Dr. Jacques Vallee's Letter (April 27, 1993):

Vallee agrees that the significance of the Pentacle memo lies partly in what it does not say (e.g., no mention of recovered UFO hardware or alien bodies). He highlights three points:

1. Project Twinkle vs. Pentacle: Vallee contrasts passive military observational efforts like Project Twinkle with the Pentacle proposal, which daringly suggests "many different types of aerial activity should be secretly and purposefully scheduled within the area." He interprets this as a call for large-scale, covert simulation of UFO waves under military control, going beyond mere observation.
2. Robertson Panel Manipulation: Vallee points to the "scandal of major proportion" involving the manipulation of the Robertson panel. He states that the eminent scientists on the panel were not made aware of all the data, and another group had already decided "what can and cannot be discussed." Dr. Hynek reportedly confirmed that the panel was not briefed about the Pentacle proposals.
3. Battelle and Project Stork: Vallee notes the "explosive nature" of the document, recalling Fred Beckman's account of the Project Stork team's fury when Hynek questioned them in 1967. He criticizes Just Cause for failing to see the significance of the Pentacle Memo, suggesting it proves that scientific studies of UFOs have been manipulated since the fifties. He poses several research questions: why were Pentacle's proposals kept from the panel? Were the simulations implemented? Where, when, and how? What were the results? Are they ongoing?

Vallee also advises that the book "Forbidden Science" is a diary and requires reading between the lines for full understanding, suggesting Just Cause's analysis of the Pentacle memo was simplistic and out of context.

Battelle Staffer's Letter (April 27, 1993):

The anonymous Battelle staffer offers a different perspective, agreeing with Vallee's assessment that the memo doesn't prove a top-secret project above Blue Book or Battelle's direct involvement in such a project. The letter suggests the memo was likely a normal part of Battelle's efforts on behalf of Blue Book/ATIC, showing scientist Howard Cross offering ideas for approaching the UFO problem scientifically.

Key points from the Battelle staffer:

• Normal Research Effort: The letter was likely a scientific proposal, not evidence of a secret project. Battelle was under contract to assist the Air Force with Blue Book at that time.
• Robertson Panel Timing: Howard Cross correctly warned that it was too early for the Robertson Panel to convene due to insufficient data, though this recommendation was ignored.
• Battelle's Role: Battelle is described as a research and development laboratory, not a "think tank" like the Rand Corporation. The "Stork" project was a broader contract, and "Bear" might have been the nickname for the UFO part of the contract, as mentioned by Ruppelt.
• Authenticity: The staffer confirms the letter's authenticity, citing the project accounting number "G-1579-4" as a detail unknown to hoaxers. The system is still in use at Battelle.
• Ethical Conduct: Battelle's work is characterized by integrity, ethical regard for client confidentiality (governmental and industrial), and a commitment to national security. They will refer inquiries about Blue Book to the National Archives.

CAUS's Response to the Pentacle Exchange:

CAUS adds its own remarks, suggesting that the original article offered more mundane explanations for the Pentacle memo's points. They agree with Vallee that there was an attempt to manipulate scientific data, but believe it was the Robertson Panel trying to manipulate Battelle's information. CAUS questions how the panel could tackle such a complex issue in a short time while usurping Battelle's data.

Dr. Thornton Page, a surviving Robertson Panel member, reportedly agreed with CAUS's stance on Pentacle and recalled liking the suggestion for large-scale monitoring.

CAUS states that after nearly twenty years of research, they have found no evidence supporting Vallee's interpretation of the Pentacle memo and prefer to interpret documents literally.

Editorial

The editorial addresses two main points: changes within CAUS and the broader issue of scientific illiteracy.

CAUS's Future: Due to the current economic climate and a potential decrease in subscribers, CAUS may be forced to operate on an "exchange only" basis, relying on the UFO press for wider coverage. However, they affirm their commitment to continuing their work for the "foreseeable future" without begging for funds.

Scientific Illiteracy: The editorial laments the growing scientific illiteracy in the U.S., citing a newspaper headline about it endangering the nation. It notes the difficulty in communicating research findings on aerial anomalies to a population that is increasingly unaware, unwilling to learn, or unable to read. The problem is exacerbated by the unavailability of good information through public institutes, as library budgets shrink and space for books vanishes. This leaves UFO organizations to provide historical background, often with a slanted perspective.

Academic UFO Collections: The editorial highlights attempts to make serious scientific UFO collections available at colleges and universities. It mentions:

• Columbia University: Donated files of Dr. Leon Davidson, containing rare books, newsletters, and scrapbooks from early UFO research.
• Ohio State University: Building a collection through the efforts of William Jones.
• Onondaga Community College (Syracuse, NY): A continuously updated collection focused on serious, scientific aspects of UFO research, founded by Steve Zalewski since the 1970s.

CAUS appeals for support for these collections and encourages researchers with large collections to donate them rather than discard them, emphasizing their importance for preserving UFO history and its impact on fields like meteorology.

Unidentified Phenomenon: North Atlantic Ocean

This section details a sighting by the crew of the s.s. Osaka Bay on June 22, 1976. At 2113 GMT, a pale orange glow was seen west of the ship. At 2115 GMT, a ghostly white disc was observed at an approximate altitude of 10 degrees. By 2120 GMT, the disc had grown, touching the horizon, and its upper limb reached 24° 30'. The disc appeared as a well-defined globe, with stars visible through it. By 2130 GMT, half the disc was below the horizon, with a "searchlight beam" of light extending from it. The beam maintained its brilliance even after the disc disappeared by 2140 GMT, and the sky remained bright for another ten minutes. Weather conditions were noted, including temperature, pressure, wind, and cloud cover. The ship's position was 24° 25′N, 17°09′W at 2115 GMT.

Expanding Ball of Light Phenomena

This brief note announces that the next issue will feature a more extensive treatment of "expanding ball of light" (EBOL) phenomena, which have become increasingly apparent in historical searches and have appeared in newly-seen government records.

Update on the Mendez Story

The FBI responded to a CAUS appeal regarding the non-release of records on the Simone Mendez interrogations of 1982. The FBI re-released a document already provided and advised CAUS to direct further appeals to the Air Force. The FBI claims not to have the original document that initiated the problems for Mendez, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations denies having it, leaving CAUS in a difficult position to obtain the necessary information.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the recovery and preservation of historical UFO documentation, particularly concerning Project Blue Book and Project Sign. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of rigorous research, critical analysis of evidence, and the ethical conduct of research organizations. The magazine also addresses the broader societal issues of scientific illiteracy and the challenges faced by UFO research organizations in terms of funding and public engagement. The editorial stance is one of determined pursuit of historical truth, a preference for literal interpretation of evidence, and a commitment to the scientific study of UFO phenomena, while acknowledging the difficulties and controversies within the field.