Ohio UFO Notebook - No 18 - 1998

Magazine Overview

This document is a special edition of the "Ohio UFO Notebook," specifically issue #18, titled "The Fitzgerald Report." It presents a "Complete and Detailed Account of the Sighting of An Unidentified Flying Object" that occurred in Sheffield Lake, Ohio, on September 21, 1958. The report was authored by Robert J. Durant and published by MidOhio Research Associates, Inc. The copyright dates indicate it was originally compiled in 1959 and updated in 1998.

Introduction by Robert J. Durant (1998)

Robert J. Durant provides a 1998 introduction to the Fitzgerald Report, framing it within the context of the "fabulous fifties" and the battle between ufologists like Major Donald Keyhoe and the Air Force's Project Bluebook. He notes that ufology was struggling, with Project Bluebook claiming a 98% success rate in explaining sightings, often ridiculing witnesses. The Fitzgerald sighting was seen as a potential "real winner" to counter Bluebook's narrative. Durant emphasizes the exceptional nature of the Fitzgerald sighting: a close encounter of long duration, with witnesses looking down on the object, multiple corroborating witnesses, and no possibility of a prosaic explanation.

He recounts the Air Force's minimal investigation, involving only two sergeants and a low-ranking officer, which he characterizes as "amateurish." Durant states that the goal was to prove the Air Force's UFO investigation program was "phony." To this end, they gathered correspondence, produced the Fitzgerald Report, and distributed it widely to Congress, the Senate, and media outlets. However, they received "nothing. Zero." Congressman Baumhart privately suggested a cover-up, but was powerless. Even NICAP, which sought daylight sightings by airline pilots, showed no interest in this close encounter case.

Durant quotes Jacques Vallee, who noted that American ufology did not admit the existence of such reports until the late Sixties, with only APRO recognizing the significance of landing reports, while Bluebook categorized them as psychological. He criticizes the Air Force for avoiding substantive comment and resorting to generalized attacks on ufologists.

He then discusses Donald Menzel, who he describes as a "first class scientist" who wrote extensively on flying saucers. Menzel devoted ten pages of his book "The World of Flying Saucers" to the Fitzgerald sighting. Durant suggests that Menzel's account puts the reader at a disadvantage, as they do not have the Fitzgerald Report at hand for comparison. He alleges that Menzel engineered his debunking with "great care" and that Phillip Klass learned his methods from Menzel. Durant points out specific instances where Menzel allegedly inserted false data, such as claiming "none of the neighboring houses was lighted," when in fact neighbors were up watching a late movie and corroborated the sighting. Durant also reveals that he was "Mr. C." mentioned in Menzel's account and that he, not a frustrated Sergeant A, led the investigator into the yard. He notes that the accompanying sergeant was "plainly intoxicated."

Durant also addresses Menzel's claims about the weather, stating that Menzel insisted it was raining to support a "rain-smeared window" explanation, despite witness accounts and weather reports indicating otherwise. He contrasts Menzel's use of the Cleveland weather summary with the local Lorain Journal and Coast Guard data, which he argues did not support Menzel's claims about wind direction needed for a smoke explanation.

He concludes that Menzel's debunking was a form of "patriotic service" and that the "brilliantly conceived and marvelously executed disinformation program" continued.

Message Exchange with Karl Pflock

This section details a message exchange in August 1997 between Robert Durant and veteran UFO investigator Karl Pflock regarding the Fitzgerald case. Pflock offers several comments and questions:

1. Pflock acknowledges Durant's material and notes that the Air Force's and Menzel's reactions confirm the adage, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
2. He notes that page 14 of Durant's report was missing and asks for a copy.
3. Pflock suggests that Chief Schott's vessel spotlight being "tunable" might indicate he was chasing a UFO rather than a speedboat.
4. He clarifies a date discrepancy, noting that September 22, 1958, was a Saturday, not the 20th as mentioned in an introduction for the New Jersey MUFON.
5. Pflock questions whether Mrs. Fitzgerald was shown the sketch from Blue Book Special Report 14 before and during her session with the artist, as claimed by Menzel, suggesting this could present a problem.
6. He asks Durant if he believes in an orchestrated disinformation campaign since 1947, or if it's more of a "screw up" as suggested by Jim McDonald.

Durant replies to Pflock's points:

1. Durant confirms Pflock's initial point.
2. He states a copy of the missing page 14 is being sent.
3. Durant acknowledges Pflock's point about Chief Schott's spotlight.
4. He admits he cannot find the Lorain newspapers to verify the date but agrees it might help find other missing items.
5. Durant states he has no recollection of showing Mrs. Fitzgerald the Blue Book pamphlet with sketches before or during the artist's session. He explains that the artist's drawing was made during an ongoing interview and that Mrs. Fitzgerald approved the artist's version. He suggests that any similarity between the artist's version and the Blue Book pamphlet is an item of scientific interest, not indicative of fraud. He questions how Menzel learned of this alleged showing of sketches.
6. Durant firmly opts for "cover up" over "screw up," citing the Robertson Report as a policy statement for the UFO problem. He argues that Menzel exhibited "unmistakable signs of psychopathology" regarding UFOs. He believes the CIA has manipulated the media, planting the "party line" in major newspapers. He also notes the consistent presence of scientists like Menzel, Condon, and Sagan who, in his view, kept the scientific community away from the subject.

Durant also states he does not have any of the original case material, including the interview tape, and has no idea where it might be.

Comments From MORA by William E. Jones

William E. Jones, writing for MORA (MidOhio Research Associates), explains that they decided to republish the Fitzgerald Report at the suggestion of its author, Bob Durant. He notes that the Fitzgerald case is one of Ohio's classic UFO cases and lists three other notable Ohio UFO cases: the Bruce Stevenson sighting (March 1957), the Deputy Sheriff Dale Spaur chase (April 1966), and the Coyne Helicopter Case (October 1973).

Jones states that the Fitzgerald case has been largely forgotten by investigators and writers and that MORA believes it deserves to be remembered to take its rightful place in UFO history and contribute to resolving the "mystery of the flying saucer."

Further Discussion with Karl Pflock

This section continues the discussion with Karl Pflock, who is writing a book titled "Are Some UFOs Flying Saucers? A Case for Extraterrestrial Visitation." Pflock's position is that UFOs are "real - that is, as yet unexplained phenomena." He believes that reports involving strange craft, living creatures, and physical evidence leave only two choices: hoax or reality. If real, he argues, they must be products of non-human intelligence, possibly from extra-solar planets. He is "subjectively certain" of visitation but acknowledges the lack of definitive proof, though he believes it may be present in the data.

Pflock's book will discuss the results of Project Blue Book Special Report 14 and the Condon Report, arguing that their statistics, often viewed as "anti-UFO," would be considered strong evidence by "real science" if applied to other subjects. He intends to present cases supportive of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH), with the Fitzgerald Report being one such case. Pflock's work aims to appeal for bringing ufology "back down to earth."

Witness Descriptions and Corroborating Cases

This section details the primary witness account and other related sightings.

Mrs. William Fitzgerald's Sighting

Mrs. Fitzgerald describes waking up around 3 a.m. on September 21, 1958, to an intense light illuminating her room, despite drawn curtains. She looked out her window and saw an object directly across from her, about ten feet from the window, and five feet off the ground. She described it as a "disc with a hump in the middle" with a "dull aluminum color." It had no visible means of propulsion or guidance, no rivets or seams, and emitted no heat or wind. The object was estimated to be 20 to 22 feet in diameter and 6 feet high. It moved north across her lawn, losing altitude, and then hovered motionless about fifty feet away and one foot off the ground. Smoke began to billow around it from two openings with about seven pipes, emitting a "pink-gray" smoke that luminesced and lit up the object. It then rose to about five feet, made two quick clockwise turns (estimated turning radius of three feet), and shot straight up out of sight. The noise was described as a "whirring or whining noise," muffled, unlike train sounds. The entire sighting lasted about 36 seconds. She was terrified and unable to wake her husband. She later discovered her ten-year-old son had also seen the object.

John Fitzgerald's Sighting

John Fitzgerald, aged ten, was in the next room and awakened to a bright white light shining through his window, forcing him to shield his eyes. He saw the light coming from where the hump joined the disc. The object moved past his window going south. He climbed to see it better and observed the object was no longer giving off light. He described its color as similar to a "tin cup" and simulated its low pulsating sound by whistling and humming. His description matched his mother's.

Mr. D's Experience

Mr. D, preparing for bed, was attracted by a light shining into his room through the drawn curtains. He described the light as having the color of moonlight but from a much larger source. He did not think much of it and went to sleep, assuming it was the moon. The light did not move or pulsate, and there was no sound. This experience occurred several minutes before Mrs. Fitzgerald's.

Mr. and Mrs. P's Experience

Mr. and Mrs. P heard a strange noise while in their living room. Mrs. P described it as similar to a jet plane roar but of a lower pitch, with an abrupt start and fade-out over about four seconds. They dismissed it as train sounds, noting that their television set, which usually fluttered with passing airplanes, showed no disturbance.

Mrs. Stewart's Sighting (Lorain)

At 2:30 a.m. on the same morning, Mrs. Stewart in Lorain was awakened by a light. She saw a "round red object" several times larger than the moon, with a "hump" or protrusion. It had no markings. About five minutes later, the object had shifted west. She estimated its size as comparable to a 2-inch object held at 14 inches. It was in the WSW sky, about 40 degrees above the horizon.

Mrs. Grego's Sighting (Lorain)

Around 2 a.m., Mrs. Grego saw a "big red ball" moving outside her window. The object approached horizontally for several seconds, then moved up and out of sight. She described a low pulsating sound that made her sick to her stomach, and thought she heard a crashing sound before it came into sight. She described the object's color as similar to a "tin cup."

Analysis

The analysis section evaluates the Fitzgerald sighting against official Air Force criteria for identifying a UFO (AFR 200-2). The criteria require an object that does not conform to known aircraft or missiles and cannot be positively identified as a familiar object. For a sighting to qualify, certain conditions must be met:

1. Familiar Background: The object should be seen against a familiar background (trees, houses, etc.). This allows for size estimation.
2. Proximity: The object must be fairly close to the observer for accurate identification.
3. Duration: The sighting must be long enough for the observer to focus and note details. A five-second sighting is considered highly questionable.
4. Maneuverability: The object should maneuver in a way that clearly distinguishes it from conventional aircraft or balloons, such as abrupt turns.

The analysis concludes that the Fitzgerald sighting fulfills the first two conditions completely due to the witness's favorable position and the object's proximity. The object was silhouetted against a familiar background, and its distance was accurately known, minimizing size misjudgment. The 36-second duration is deemed sufficient time for the witness to focus and observe details, making it unlikely she mistook it for a common object. Her description of the object's motions is also considered reliable. The analysis notes that the image remained vivid enough for her to direct an artist.

Air Force Investigation Details

This section details the Air Force's investigation into the Fitzgerald sighting. Two investigators from the UFO Research Committee of Akron interviewed Mrs. Fitzgerald and sent a summary to the Air Force's Aerial Phenomena Group at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, requesting an investigation. The Air Force sent two investigators from Dayton who surveyed train schedules, lake activity, and other factors. They interviewed Mrs. Fitzgerald and her son John on October 4. Mrs. Fitzgerald completed a standard UFO reporting form and answered questions. The investigators offered no immediate opinions but assured her that the official conclusion would be communicated within thirty days, with evidence available if it was a "known" category.

The Air Force investigators asked specific questions: whether it was raining (witness said it had rained hours before), if the smoke appeared fluorescent (witness thought so), how the light turned off (not quickly), if the object left quickly (yes), if she had been under medical care (no), and if the object appeared aluminum (like two tin cups). No other questions were asked.

Corroborating Witnesses and Other Sightings

Two other individuals in the neighborhood, Mr. D and Mr. and Mrs. P, reported experiences that helped confirm the presence of a strange object. Mr. D saw a light similar to moonlight but from a larger source. Mr. and Mrs. P heard a strange, abrupt noise like a low-pitched jet roar. Neither had an explanation. They contacted Mrs. Fitzgerald after her story was published. No house-to-house checks were conducted.

Two other sightings from that morning in Lorain are also included: Mrs. Stewart saw a large, round red object with a hump, and Mrs. Grego saw a "big red ball" with a pulsating sound. These are presented as potentially related phenomena.

Analysis of the Sighting

The analysis reiterates that the Fitzgerald sighting meets the criteria for an "unknown" airborne object. The witness's proximity, the familiar background, the 36-second duration, and the object's distinct maneuvers (hovering, turning, rapid ascent) all point to an unidentified phenomenon. The analysis dismisses prosaic explanations like balloons or conventional aircraft, noting that the object's behavior and appearance were inconsistent with known objects. The witness's ability to recall details and direct an artist further supports the reliability of her account.

Other Cases and Menzel's Debunking

This section delves deeper into the context of the Fitzgerald case, including Menzel's debunking efforts and other related UFO reports.

Menzel's Debunking of the Fitzgerald Case

Durant criticizes Menzel's ten-page treatment of the Fitzgerald sighting in "The World of Flying Saucers." He argues that Menzel's account is designed to confuse the reader and that Menzel took liberties by not having the Fitzgerald Report at hand. Durant alleges Menzel inserted false data, such as the claim that no neighboring houses were lit, which contradicted witness accounts. He also recounts his own interaction with the Air Force investigators, noting one was intoxicated and that he, not Menzel's description, led the investigator into the yard. Durant also refutes Menzel's claims about the weather, presenting evidence from the Lorain Journal and Chief Schott that contradicts Menzel's assertion of rain and specific wind directions used to support a smoke explanation.

Menzel's General Approach

Durant suggests that Menzel's debunking was part of a larger disinformation program. He posits that Menzel, a brilliant scientist, exhibited "psychopathology" when dealing with UFOs, viewing the subject as something to be debunked for patriotic reasons. He contrasts this with ufologists like McDonald and Hynek, who sought common-sense answers but failed to recognize the deliberate cover-up.

The Robertson Report and Disinformation

Durant refers to the Robertson Report (also called the Durant Report) as the "founding statement of policy for the UFO problem," asserting it advocated for a cover-up. He believes the public has been conditioned to dismiss UFOs as bunk, with witnesses labeled as marginal personalities. This has been achieved through hierarchical journalism, planting narratives in major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post.

Message Exchange with Karl Pflock (Continued)

Durant responds to Pflock's questions. He confirms that he does not have the original case material or the interview tape. He reiterates his belief in a cover-up, citing Menzel's "psychopathology" and the Robertson Report's policy. He argues that the CIA has manipulated the media and that scientists like Menzel, Condon, and Sagan have consistently steered the scientific community away from UFO research.

Comments from MORA (William E. Jones)

William E. Jones, for MORA, explains their decision to republish the Fitzgerald Report, highlighting its significance as a classic Ohio UFO case. He lists other notable Ohio UFO cases and expresses the belief that the Fitzgerald case deserves to be remembered to contribute to resolving the mystery of the flying saucer.

Karl Pflock's Position on UFOs

Karl Pflock states that UFOs are "real - that is, as yet unexplained phenomena." He believes that reports involving strange craft and living creatures leave two choices: hoax or reality. If real, he argues, they must be products of non-human intelligence, possibly from extra-solar planets. He is "subjectively certain" of visitation but acknowledges the lack of definitive proof. His upcoming book will analyze the Condon Report and Project Blue Book Special Report 14, arguing their findings support the ETH. He sees the Fitzgerald Report as a key case supporting the ETH and aims to bring ufology "back down to earth."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the nature of UFO sightings, the alleged government cover-up of UFO phenomena, and the methods used to debunk or discredit witness accounts. The editorial stance, primarily articulated by Robert J. Durant, is critical of official explanations like Project Bluebook and debunkers such as Donald Menzel. Durant firmly believes in a deliberate, long-standing disinformation campaign aimed at concealing the reality of UFOs and the potential presence of non-human intelligence. The issue champions the Fitzgerald case as a prime example of a credible sighting that was inadequately investigated and subsequently attacked by debunkers. The inclusion of Karl Pflock's perspective reinforces the idea that UFOs are real, unexplained phenomena, and that the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis warrants serious consideration. The overall tone is one of advocacy for UFO research and a distrust of official narratives and debunking efforts.

This document, likely an issue from the "UFO Research Committee of Akron, Ohio," focuses on the controversial Fitzgerald UFO sighting that occurred on September 21, 1958, in Sheffield Lake, Ohio. The issue critically examines the official U.S. Air Force investigation and conclusion, presenting it as a case study of how UFO reports were allegedly mishandled and dismissed.

The Fitzgerald Sighting

Mrs. William Fitzgerald reported observing a metallic, disc-shaped object maneuvering in her front yard at approximately 3 a.m. on September 21, 1958. The object exhibited "unnatural" motions, including gliding, hovering, turning, and ascending rapidly. The description emphasizes its symmetrical shape, noting the presence of pipes in the rim, and suggests it was "intelligently directed." Her son, John, also witnessed the object, ruling out a hallucination.

Questioning the Official Narrative

The document poses several critical questions: Was the sighting a hoax? Was it a hallucination? Was the object a government missile or flying device? It argues against the government missile theory, stating that no nation would risk flying such a device over foreign territory. Public testimony before the House Science and Astronautics Committee is cited, indicating the U.S. did not possess such a device at the time.

The Air Force Investigation and Conclusion

The Air Force investigation, conducted by Tech. Sergeants Hof and Haistan, concluded that the sighting was an illusion caused by a combination of factors: a railroad track running near the house, a train passing at approximately the same time with a rotating "mars light" or "gyralight" headlight, and a spotlight being used by Chief Bosun Mate William Schott of the Coast Guard. The report suggests the train headlight could have illuminated Mrs. Fitzgerald's room, and Schott's spotlight, directed generally towards the shore, might have contributed to the illusion.

Analysis of Air Force Conclusion

The document strongly refutes the Air Force's conclusion, presenting a detailed "Analysis of Air Force Conclusion." It argues that the train headlight explanation is insufficient, as it could only account for the initial illumination and not the subsequent observations of a solid object. The witness's proximity and orientation to the tracks are also considered, making a misidentification unlikely. The sound of the object is also contrasted with the sound of a train, with Mrs. Fitzgerald unable to find a similarity. The Coast Guard spotlight is also dismissed as a potential cause, as its location and beam characteristics do not align with the sighting.

Blunders in the Air Force Investigation

A significant portion of the document is dedicated to detailing the alleged "blunders" committed by Sergeants Hof and Haistan. These include:

• Failure to observe train headlights: Despite being requested, the sergeants did not check if the train headlights illuminated Mrs. Fitzgerald's window.
• Misunderstanding of geography: Listing lake activity as a factor when the lake was too far away to be seen from the house.
• Inaccurate reporting of Chief Schott's actions: Failing to note the distance of Schott's boat from the shore when signaling.
• Distorting witness statements: Falsely claiming Mrs. Steward could not recall anything unusual, when she later signed a statement refuting this.
• Misidentifying witnesses: Referring to Mr. Grego as an unavailable witness when it was actually Mrs. Grego.
• Fabricating weather conditions: Stating the weather was a "misty rain with haze and smoke" when the witness described clear conditions, and failing to check wind direction regarding smoke from a nearby steel plant.
• Omissions and lack of interest: Failing to conduct a neighborhood check, not asking for a 3-dimensional drawing of the object, showing little interest in the object's shape and motions, and forcing Mrs. Fitzgerald to use a standard UFO reporting form not suited for her observations.

Witness Testimony: Mrs. Jack T. Stewart

Another witness, Mrs. Jack T. Stewart of Lorain, Ohio, also reported a sighting on the same night at 2:30 a.m. She described a round, red object, several times bigger than the moon, with a "hump" or protrusion on top. She initially thought it was the moon but realized it was something else. The object shifted position and was estimated to be about 2 inches in diameter at a distance of 14 inches from her eye. Sergeants Hof and Haistain interviewed her briefly but decided against having her fill out a report form.

Size Estimation and Comparison

A diagram illustrates the "Similar Triangles Method" for estimating UFO size, which was used to determine the object's diameter to be about 22 feet. A drawing from Air Force Project Bluebook Special Report #14 is also presented, showing an object with dimensions corresponding to Mrs. Fitzgerald's report, suggesting similar objects have been documented in official investigations.

Conclusion on Air Force Investigation

The document concludes that the Air Force's conclusion in the Fitzgerald report was based on a "complete disregard for the facts" and that the investigation was "criminally mishandled." It asserts that this case is typical of the 98.1% of UFO reports that the Air Force terms as "known," implying a systematic effort to dismiss unexplained phenomena through "refinements in investigative procedure."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical examination of official UFO investigations, particularly those conducted by the U.S. Air Force. The editorial stance is highly skeptical of the Air Force's methodology and conclusions, portraying them as biased, incompetent, and dismissive of credible witness testimony. The document champions the idea that genuine, unexplained aerial phenomena are being systematically categorized as "known" through flawed investigative processes. The publication appears to advocate for a more thorough and unbiased approach to UFO research.

This document, titled "APPENDIX," comprises pages 14 through 19 of a publication, likely a magazine or report, focusing on correspondence and documentation related to a specific UFO sighting. The content centers on the Fitzgerald case and the subsequent interactions between witnesses, private research groups, and governmental bodies, primarily the U.S. Air Force.

The Fitzgerald Sighting and Initial Correspondence The appendix begins with a statement that a significant series of correspondence has occurred between Mrs. Fitzgerald, the Air Force, members of Congress, and members of "our group." These letters are presented to reveal the Air Force's position on UFOs more clearly than official statements.

Mrs. Fitzgerald's letter to the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, dated September 29, 1958, describes a "terribly frightening experience" during a UFO sighting on September 21, 1958. She requested an investigator and threatened to contact her congressman if no action was taken. She expressed concern about being placed in the path of "government devices" or warned the public if it was a "space craft."

A summary prepared by a private UFO investigator who interviewed Mrs. Fitzgerald and others was enclosed with her letter. On the same day, Mrs. Fitzgerald wrote to her congressman, the Honorable A. D. Baumhart, Jr., asking him to check with the Air Force for their conclusions.

Air Force Response and Mrs. Fitzgerald's Outrage Congressman Baumhart received a reply from Major General W. P. Fisher, which released the official Air Force conclusions. Upon receiving these conclusions, Mrs. Fitzgerald wrote to her congressman on November 4, 1958, expressing outrage and calling the conclusion "insane." She mentioned a report being prepared by the UFO Research Committee of Akron, which would be sent to him. She refuted the Air Force's claim that "Mrs. Steward reported nothing unusual," stating she had a signed statement from Mrs. Steward confirming she saw an object and described it to Air Force men. Mrs. Fitzgerald requested a personal meeting with her congressman and asked the UFO Research Committee member investigating the case to refrain from contacting the Air Force until more evidence could be gathered to prove mishandling.

UFO Research Committee's Investigation and Allegations The UFO Research Committee had thoroughly investigated the Fitzgerald case and documented significant facts. Believing the public should be informed, they decided to publish a written report. An initial report was published in December 1958 by a UFO group in Akron, Ohio, with limited distribution. This report was a revised and supplemented version of the original. Copies were sent to members of Congress and Air Force officers, including Major General Fisher. A letter accompanying the report to General Fisher on December 7, 1958, charged the investigation team with "criminal mishandling" and stated that the case was typical of all UFO cases, proving that the Air Force's statements about conducting fair, honest, and scientific investigations were false and misleading.

The committee posed two questions to General Fisher: (1) What action would be taken to discipline the ATIC investigation team? (2) What action would be taken to properly investigate and evaluate this particular report? A copy of this letter was sent to Senator John W. Bricker.

Further Correspondence and Air Force Stance A copy of the original report was also sent to Major Lawrence J. Tacker, the Air Force officer in charge of UFO inquiries. The accompanying letter dated December 19, 1958, reiterated the allegations of inadequate, thorough, and honest investigation, citing proof that the Air Force's treatment of the UFO problem lacked honesty. It questioned if General Fisher had been misled and asked him to clarify the authenticity of his previous statement about the Air Force's program.

General Fisher replied on December 31, 1958, stating that Air Force Headquarters had thoroughly reviewed the investigation of the Fitzgerald sighting and was "entirely satisfied" with the individuals involved, their competence, and the accuracy and adequacy of their findings. The report notes that this letter proved significant as it was later shown the investigators were not thorough or competent and their findings were not accurate or adequate, and General Fisher did not answer the questions asked.

Major Tacker replied on January 2, 1959, with a letter almost identical to General Fisher's, stating the Air Force was "entirely satisfied" with the investigation and its findings.

The committee then wrote to Major Tacker on January 11, 1959, expressing disbelief that he and General Fisher had read the Fitzgerald report, pointing to the "Analysis of Air Force Investigation" section that proved their claims. They highlighted the contradiction between General Fisher's letter stating Mrs. Steward reported nothing unusual and Mrs. Stewart's affidavit to the contrary. They demanded an explanation or a change in the Air Force's position.

Major Tacker responded on January 14, 1959, reiterating the Air Force's satisfaction with the investigation and findings. He stated the Air Force lacked the resources to fill individual requests or answer "erroneous charges" from amateur organizations and was not interested in "theories or science fiction." He asserted that the Air Force deals "scientifically and objectively" and that findings "deny the existence of flying saucers."

Congressional Involvement and Continued Disagreement Congressman Baumhart submitted the UFO Research Committee's report to Major General Fisher on January 8, 1959, requesting further comments and a careful review, noting the committee's position that the Air Force had not conducted a "fair, honest and scientific investigation."

Congressman Baumhart informed Mrs. Fitzgerald on January 19, 1959, that General Fisher had reviewed the report and stated the Air Force remained satisfied with the investigation, investigators, and findings. He expressed regret that the analysis was not more satisfying to her.

Congressman Baumhart also received a letter from General Fisher that was identical to those previously sent to others, reinforcing the Air Force's position. The committee, still unable to accept the Air Force's stance, sent a letter to Congressman Baumhart on January 26, 1959, challenging the Air Force's statements and offering evidence of mishandling. They questioned how the Air Force would act if they were right and requested immediate action to clear the matter up.

Congressman Baumhart forwarded a letter from Fred A. Kirsch of Akron to General Fisher on January 29, 1959, requesting a more complete report and advice on any further review.

General Fisher replied on February 11, 1959, stating that the Air Force could not compete with "science-fiction writers" and that the investigation of UFO phenomena was in "responsible hands" with an "adequate, thorough, and honest program." He addressed claims of withholding information, stating that periodic press releases were used to avoid granting approval to publications and to protect individuals from "idle curiosity" and for security reasons. He reiterated that the Air Force had found no authenticated scientific evidence of space craft and considered the Fitzgerald case closed.

Continued Pursuit of Information Major Tacker's letter of February 18, 1959, acknowledged a letter concerning unidentified flying objects. He stated the Air Force had no resources for individual requests and that the press release approach was adopted because factual information provided to writers was interpreted as granting approval. He also mentioned that data is withheld to protect people from sensation seekers and for security reasons, and that sighting reports are generally not classified.

The committee noted that even a third inquiry by Congressman Baumhart failed to elicit a more detailed statement from General Fisher, who only stated the case was "closed." The letter was seen as a form letter discrediting UFO groups.

The committee wrote to Congressman William H. Ayres, seeking access to official Air Force sighting reports and analysis reports. Congressman Ayres' first inquiry received a letter identical to General Fisher's February 11th letter. His second inquiry on April 7, 1959, stated the Air Force lacked resources to fill numerous requests and could not afford to set a precedent. The Air Force would continue to publish conclusions through accredited news media, but these reports, though unclassified, were unavailable to the public.

Final Correspondence and Committee's Stance Congressman Baumhart met with members of the Committee and agreed to contact General Fisher again. General Fisher's response on April 29, 1959, reiterated that the UFO sighting at Sheffield Lake was carefully reviewed, the Air Force was satisfied with the findings, and the case was closed.

The committee had repeatedly brought up Mrs. Jack T. Stewart's affidavit and asked for an explanation regarding the contradiction with General Fisher's letter. Major Tacker's answer on April 2, 1959, confirmed that Mrs. Stewart could not recall any unusual happening on the night of the sighting.

On July 10, 1959, Representative Baumhart informed the committee that the House Science Committee Chairman had discussed the matter with Defense Department officials and stated there was no known evidence warranting a committee investigation. He also felt it unlikely that the Air Force would exert pressure on a Congressional committee to withhold hearings.

General Fisher was quoted as saying, "The Air Force is interested in the truth concerning reported sightings and is compelled to deal scientifically and objectively with facts." The committee, however, viewed this as "duplicity" and believed the Air Force's disregard for facts should be halted, urging the public to be told the truth about UFOs and suggesting others write to their representatives to request an investigation of the Air Force UFO project.

The publisher acknowledged the aid of Mr. Philip W. Ferguson, Jr. and Mr. Fred A. Kirsch in the preparation of the report.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The recurring themes in this appendix are the conflict between official government (Air Force) explanations and the findings and interpretations of private UFO research groups, the alleged lack of transparency and mishandling of investigations by the Air Force, and the challenges faced by citizens and researchers in obtaining factual information about UFO phenomena. The editorial stance of the document is critical of the Air Force's handling of the Fitzgerald case, portraying their responses as dismissive, contradictory, and potentially misleading, while championing the efforts of the UFO Research Committee to uncover and disseminate what they perceive as the truth.

Visuals Page 7 includes two images: a "DRAWING OF MRS. FITZGERALD'S CONCEPTION OF UFO" and a photo of an "ARTIST WORKING FROM MRS. FITZGERALD'S DESCRIPTION OF OBJECT."