SUBJECT: The 1952 Saucer Wave - A Story Behind the Story? FILE: UFO2454
(Just Cause, Copyright 1994 by Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, PO Box 218,
Coventry, CT 06238, published bi-monthly with a subscription rate of
$15/yr.)
One of the most extraordinary periods in the hlstory of the UFO
phenomena occurred during the summer of 1952. Literally thousands of
flying saucer reports inundated the Air Force, police departments and
newspapers with arounrd-the-clock activity. Central to this wave of
reports were sightings over Washington D.C. Three major radar trackings
of "unknowns" and a number of minor ones plagued Air Force and clvilian
air traffic controllers. Jets had to be scrambled to confront the
incasion of radar pips. In some cases pilots did detect strange 1ights
over the city but as quickly as they would appear the objects would
disappear, leaving officials scratching their heads over what had
happened. During this three-week stretch banner headlines alerted the
nation to the return of the saucers (having been in the news at various
times since 1947).
The Air Force statistics for this time were extraordinary. 1952
produced 15O1 UFO incidents, the highest of any year of the Air Force's
twenty-one year long investigtion. 303 of those were considered
"unidentified" after investigation, also the highest of any year by a
very large margin. The next highest was 1954, with a mere 46 unknowns
of 487 reports (Project Blue Book Fact Sheet, 1968).
Beginning in April and through May and June 1952, sightings
began a steady rise. Part of this could have been due to an article
that appeared in the April 7th, 1952 issue of Life magazine called,
"Have We Visitors from Outer Space" by H. B. Darrach and Robert Ginna.
The article was an oddity itself in that it was done with Air Force
cooperation and that it came very close to endorsing the notion of UFOs
as extraterrestrial devices. Cases were declassified and released to
the Life writers. The magazine arranged to forward sightings to the Air
Force from Life's readers (_The UFO Controversy in America_ by David
Jacobs, 1975, pg. 69). The Air Force's policy prior to this had been to
discourage such thinking, that the phenomena was under control and that
there was nothing to the idea of visitations by beings from space. The
Life article was a virtual invitation for saucer interest to escalate.
Blue Book cases from April 16 - 30 totalled 54. May reports
totalled 68 incidents. June reports increased again to 125. (Project
Blue Book, Case Index, National Archives, 1976). When questioned by the
press about the Life article, the Air Force did not issue the usual
denial but instead maintained that the article was correct and the
conclusions were Life's (Jacobs, 1975).
Given the degree of encouragement to broadcasting saucer
incidents the Air Force must have expected to receive a rising influx of
sightings. There had always been elements in the Air Force interested
in promoting an extraterrestrial explanation for flying saucers but they
were, prior to this time, under control. One example of this was the
"Estimate of the Situation," a Top Secret document which was said to
have strongly supported saucers from space but was ultimately rejected
as an Air Force policy statement (Just Cause, September 1992).
Captain Edward Ruppelt, who became head of Project Blue Book in
1951, was the most liberal of the Air Force's UFO investigators to that
time. He had promoted an upscale program, was open-minded in his
approach, and while not an alien advocate, had regarded some of the
sightings as genuine mysteries.
Question: If Air Force policy had been to discourage a flying
saucer/outer space connection publicly, why suddenly open the door to a
situation similar to that of the summer of 1947 when the press went
absolutely wild with saucer stories and questions on what the government
was doing about it? In other words, there wasn't a compelling reason
for a policy shift in April 1952. The consensus of various UFO
histories is that Ruppelt's serious approach to UFOs caused the Air
Force's top brass to lend more support to Blue Book by being less
secretive and more open and analytical. Ruppelt said in his book (The
Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 1956) that Life's pro-saucer
statements were "unofffcially inspired" by several very high-ranking Air
Force officers at the Pentagon, "so high that their personal opinion was
almost policy." Was the reason for these "personal opinions" being made
a public issue based on the possibility that an "answer" to the saucer
mystery was evident to the Air Force, something which hadn't been proven
to that point, or could there have been a more mundane reason which will
lead to the core of a new explanation as to why the 1952 wave evolved as
it did?
JULY
----
July reports totalled 401, a massive increase in the monthly
intake by Blue Book. Only 81 of those came from July 1 - 14, leaving
320 from July 15 - 31. This huge output from the 15th on is important
as we shall see later.
In the process of doing historical sweeps of the press, CAUS has
located a great deal of information on the 1952 wave. A comprehensive
search of New England area newspapers has produced one thousand pages of
clippings from July-August alone. Our search has taken five months of
weekly six-hour sessions looking at microfilm in various libraries. One
cannot get a grasp of the time without following news events day by day.
Putting the saucer stories in context this way might reveal facts that
were previously overlooked. "New" old sightings were found.
Commentaries and opinions expressing the mindset of the population at
the time were illuminating, and something else was found that was not
anticipated.
During July, just prior to the saucer wave becaming prominent,
the national media showed a great deal of concern as to the country's
preparedness for national defense. Numerous stories were noted in
virtually every newspaper searched regarding the lack of air spotters
for the Air Force. "Air Spotters Rally to Fill Gaps," said the Berkshire
Eagle (Ma.) for July 15th. "Not Enough Skywatchers," said the Lowell
Sun (Ma.) for July 14th. "Operatian Skywatch Flops: Volunteers Few,"
said the Holyoke Telegram-Transcript (Ma.). And on and on this theme
went in the New England press between July 14th and the 16th. The
problem appeared to be so universal that it would be fair to project
this nationally. CAUS has compiled forty pages of clips so far and we
expect to see much the same elsewhere.
What was this all about in the days before the great saucer
wave? A fair amount of explanation is necessary.
THE GROUND OBSERVER CORPS
-------------------------
In the early 1950s the U.S. government had several basic units
comprising its air defense system.
Early Warning Radar Stations - The purpose being of course to
detect enemy aircraft electronically at a distance.
Ground Controlled Intercept - Consisted of radar stations
designed to follow enemy aircraft and direct U.S. fighter planes
towards them for attack.
Fighter Interceptor Aircraft Bases - Launched U.S. fighters on
missions.
Another important element was the Ground Observer Corps, which
was in essence groups of thousands of average citizens in volunteer
service to the government for the purpose of visually spotting potential
enemy aircraft overflying the United States. The GOC had begun as an
experiment in September 1949, called "Operation Lookout." The results
had been encouraging to the point the Air Force had felt a Ground
Observer Corps could play an important role in plugging holes in the
existing radar network. The ultimate goal of the program was to have
24-hour sky coverage by one million volunteer spotters at 24,000
observation posts (_The Air Force_ by A. Brophy, 1956, pg. 91). And
with volunteers, the cost of the program would be much less than paying
professionals who could not be employed in such large numbers.
The GOC worked under joint control of the U.S. government and
civil authorities. The Air Force would handle the tactical end of the
program, such as training the volunteers and designing procedures for
reporting. Civil authorities would take care of personnel and record
keeping. The chain of command in a given state would begin with the
governor. Under him would be a state civil defense director, then a
director for the state Ground Observer Corps. The GOC director then had
a GOC coordination officer who knew the appropriate locations and
personnel in various counties. Within the counties would be area
supervisors who would be responsible for the activation and operation of
GOC posts in his/her area. Finally, there would be a post supervisor
who would oversee the individual post and volunteer personnel assigned
to it. The GOC post was generally a tower of sufficient height to give
an all-sky view. A small shelter on top contained communications
equipment, spotting equipment (binoculars; etc.) and other aids to relay
the results of visual interception of unknown aircraft (Air Force Manual
5O-12).
Part of the GOC as well was the Filter Center, a facility run by
both military and civil authorities. This is to where the individual
ground spotter would report his/her observation of an unknown. Staffed
mainly by civilians, the Filter Center would receive phone calls,
record information, plot it on large table maps, and perform other
related tasks. Since it was also part of the military chain of command,
the Filter Center had an Air Force Officer-in-Charge who made sure
things went smoothly.
Until 1952, the GOC posts operated on a man-available basis.
Rarely were posts fully staffed to provide complete 24-hour coverage of
the sky. Generally the volunteers worked 2-3 hour shifts. The overnite,
or graveyard, shifts were the most difficult to staff as they required
being awake during most people's sleep time.
It is important to know all of this because few people now know
what the Ground Observer Corps was and how it operated. Nor do they
know how a GOC air alert called "Operation Skywatch" raised the curtain
on the great saucer wave.
Operation Sktwatch was an attempt by the Air Force to put the
GOC on a 24-hour schedule for the first time. The alert was earmarked
for July 14, 1952. One problem with GOC operations at this point was
the staffing at various posts across the nation. The Air Force was
trying to push the program along to meet the challenge of completing
24-hour sky coverage to supplement the existing radar network. It was a
difficult task. One town Civil Defense director in Rhode Island, Judge
James Watts, called the attempt at 24-hour coverage "asinine" (New
Bedford Standard-Times [Ma.], July 15). He maintained that "people have
to work for a living and don't have time," especiallt since the U.S. was
not in a state of war.
In fact the Air Force rallied the GOC directors to get local
newspapers involved in getting the public to volunteer. President Truman
made a personal call for volunteers in a statement released in
Washington on July 12 (Springfield Union [Ms.] July 13). As mentioned
earlier in report, it was very obvious that the GOC people were having
difficulty everywhere.
Operation Skywatch was carried through but the results of the
July 14th alert were "spotty" (Providence Journal [R.I.], July 18), "a
deplorable situation and a sad lack of interest..." (Taunton Gazette
[Ma.], July 16), "a flop in New England," (Holyoke Telegram-Transcript
[Ma.], July 15), "Observation Post Apathy," (Portland Press-Herald
[Me.], July 18). The Worcester Telegram (Ma.) of July 18 called the
public "apathetlc and fatalistic" about the danger of enemy attack.
The Air Force said that only about thirty percent of the posts
in New England operated (Lowell Sun [Ma.], July 16). The Eastern Air
Defense Force at Stewart Air Force Base, New York reported that only
slightly more than 1500 posts in the New York area were manned out of
4OOO (New York Herald-Tribune, July 15). This after a major effort was
launched by the Air Force to make the GOC work.
A dilemma was now apparent. Question: How does the Air Force
motivate the population to become involved with the GOC; to, in effect,
stand and stare at the sky without pay for hours in anticipation of an
enemy attack that may or may not ever occur? "Things aren't very good,"
said Major Richard Curtis, the commander of the New Haven, Connecticut
Filter Center (New York Herald-Tribune, July 15). The Air Force was
committed to the GOC program, having decided in May not to reconsider
its decision to proceed with Operation Skywatch. The request to
reconsider came from a San Francisco meeting of the National Association
of State Civil Defense Directors, an influential group which could not
sway the the Air Force. The final decision had been made by General
Hoyt Vandenberg, Air Force Chief of Staff (New York Times, May 3, 1952).
THE WAVE
--------
On July 16th, barely a day after Operation Skywatch began, the
great summer 1952 wave was off and running. An escalation in the number
of saucer sightings reported to the Air Force had been in progress since
April but the press had paid little attention to them until this time.
Two veteran airline pilots, W.B. Nash and W.H. Fortenberry, had
reported seeing eight huge discs zipping along in formation near
Norfolk, Virginia on July 14th while piloting their Pan American DC-4.
At first six discs maneuvered in echelon formation below the airliner.
Making a sharp turn, the six were then joined by two other discs, all of
which soon zoomed upward and disappeared. Wire services transmitted the
story nationwide with little comment by the Air Force. The accounts
were loaded with superlatives about the credibility of the witnesses and
the quality of the report.
A United Press story transmitted on the 17th, and quoting
Captain Edward Ruppelt, indicated that sixty saucer reports had been
received in two weeks and that 1952 sightings were double the rate for
1951. The Air Force, in effect, nudges the spiraling situation upward
with this statement. Lt. Colonel Richard McGee, Director of Civil
Defense for the Dayton, Ohio area (the home of Project Blue Book), said
that he was alarmed by the increase and added, "There is something
flying around in our skies and I wish I knew what it is." (Portland
Press-Herald [Me.], July 18).
Sightings continued to increase. A July 19th story (Boston
American) indicated that sightings were received from New York, Vermont,
Colorado and Washington. The only mention of Air Force comment was that
they "take seriously all such reports."
Some press sources were provided instructions on informing the
public on how to spot and report the flying saucers (Brockton Enterprise
[Ma.], July 19). One (Fall River Herald-News [Ma.], July 21) wondered
why none of the sightings in those reported to that time were by members
of the Ground Observer Corps.
A NEW SPIN ON AN OLD STORY
--------------------------
For any of this to mean something, we must explain where all of
what we've said so far comes together. The Air Force enacted a program
of 24-hour sky coverage. Its major problem was getting volunteers to
man the country's observation posts. A very short time after the Air
Force's program gets off to a poor start, flying saucers begin to creep
into the press with little resistance from authorities. Think about it.
If you were an Air Force Intelligence officer and a major, funded
program of skywatching was heading for the hopper, what would you do?
How would you motivate the public to go outside for two to three hour
shifts and watch the skies? Answer: Flying Saucers! The lure and
fascination of potential visitors from space would motivate most
rational, thinking people into wanting to skywatch from an equipped
observation post with the appropriate training. A chance at seeing one
of these things, not to mention fulfilling a patriotic duty as well,
would be irresistable to many citizens during the early 1950s.
This is not an idea with easy evidence. To direct this
situation, the government would not have to do much of anything. If
flying saucers come along at a convenient time, let the stories get out
- to a point. Do not react to them. Allow the press to sensationalize,
arouse the public interest, thus getting recruitments and volunteers up.
Once the situation appeared to be going out of control, the Air Force
could step in, hold a press conference with the full weight of authority
behind it, and kill the wave with convincing-sounding explanations.
Planting mildly misleading stories cannot be ruled out either as a way
of keeping the wave, and the interest in it, rolling along.
The press could be fed instructions (i.e. training) to be printed
for the public, seemingly for flying saucer spotting, but, on a more
practical level for the Air Force in the long-term, GOC spotting. The
whole business could be called a form of passive manipulation that would
be hard to trace to its source, but would be highly effective for the
Air Force in its consequences. The GOC would be better staffed, the
saucer wave will have served a positive purpose for the Air Force, and
when the wave had outlived its usefulness, debunk it.
Is it plausible?
BACK TO THE WAVE
----------------
Press coverage of the 1952 wave exploded on July 22 with the
information that saucers were seen visually and on radar over
Washington, D.C. The attention given to this by the press was unlike
anything seen since saucers began to be sighted in 1947. Hardly a
newspaper in the country did not say anything about it. Continued
bafflement character-ized Air Force statements in the first week of the
wave. "A thorough investigation is being made by the Air Technical
Intelligence Center," the Air Force told the Associated Press (Boston
Globe, July 23).
On the 23rd, the first GOC reports came through. Charles Buck, a
Westfield, Maine GOC spotter saw three silver discs at high altitude.
This was followed by another GOC observer's report from Nahant, Mass. of
two discs (Brockton Enterprise [Ma.], July 23). Rather than keeping the
GOC reports "within the company" and away from the press, as one might
have expected the Air Force to do normally, they were freely gettinq out
to the media now. No serious objection was yet apparent from the Air
Force, thus more encouragement for volunteers to enroll with the GOC and
potentially to report flying saucers and make headlines. More reports
followed from Cleveland GOC spotters. And more yet from Chicago. The
commander of the GOC Filter Center in Chicago, Captain Everett Turner,
said he received a flying saucer report every hour from his volunteer
spotters (Springfield News [Ma.], July 25).
On the 24th, the Air Force, specifically Captain Edward Ruppelt
of Project Blue Book, emphatically denied that the saucer wave had
anything to do with putting the GOC volunteers on 24-hour duty
(Providence Journal [R.I.], July 24). Yet in an interview with Colonel
Richard McGee, the Dayton, Ohio Civil Defense Director in charge of the
area incorporating Ruppelt's headquarters, he was asked whether or not
there was a connection between Operation Sky watch and the flying
saucers. He responded that to his knowledge no specific reason had been
given "_but that could be the answer._" (emphasis added) (Portland
Press-Herald [Me.], July 18). Evidently some military people were
thinking about linkage between the two, as we are now. Without a
smoking gun though, it could only have been unuttered speculation for
most leaning to this idea.
The build-up of reports and publicity continued on for the next
few days. The reluctance of the Air Force to debunk reports continued
as well, though civilian scientists began to object to the presentation
of the sightings as mysterious. Dr. Donald Menzel became prominent
during this time as a key saucer critic.
The wave roared on at a fever pitch as press coverage on the
28th revealed a second weekend of strange sightings over Washington. Jet
interceptors again were foiled in attempting to identify the intruders.
The wave coverage was now taking on an alarmist tendency and serious
questions were being asked as to whether or not the military could
handle the situation effectively. For example, according to the New
York Times (July 29), the jets did not respond to the sightings over
Washington until nearly two hours after the first radar trackings were
reported, a remarkable admission by the military in the midst of the
Cold War.
Now something had to be done to douse the fire that the Air
Force had allowed to build. A press conference was quickly convened on
the 29th of July, led by Major General John Samford, the Air Force's
Chief of Intelligence.
The saucers, General Samford assured the press, were no threat
to our national security. While conceding that some sightings were
difficult to explain, the Air Force nevertheless balanced this with a
variety of possible explanations for most of the reports. The
"temperature inversion," a weather condition known to dupe radar into
registering "solid" targets that were not really there in a physical
sense, became the explanation of preference for the Washington radar
trackings. Mirages and exaggerations were meted out to the press as
further likelihoods. The Air Force was careful to protect the
reputations of its personnel by asserting that credible observers were
seeing relatively incredible things. The message was clear though that
those "incredible things" were incredible as a function of subjective
impressions, weather conditions and the fallibility of technical
equipment.
With the weight of authority behind it, the press conference
effectively nullified the alarm raised by the media. Since the saucers
had not landed on the White House lawn, nor did decidedly mysterious
hard evidence surface, it would have been difficult for pro-saucer
advocates to offset the official pronouncements. Some of the press
quickly seized on this shift in attitude with headlines like "Public
Starting to Accept Theory Discs are Illusions" (Quincy Patriot-Ledger
[Ma], Juiy 31).
The Blue Book report total for August was 278, a significant
drop from July. Many did not accept the Air Force's explanations but
the aftermath of the press conference distinctly reduced 1) the alarmist
nature of the coverage which had begun well into the wave, and 2) the
level of coverage which had sloped downward fram the beginning of August
onward.
GOC VOLUNTEERS/AIR FORCE RECRUITMENTS
-------------------------------------
Reports towards the end of July appeared indicating that not
only had GOC volulnteers increased but that the Air Force enlistments
were up. The Springfield Union (Ma.), July 3O said, "Air Force Tops its
July Quota," with the enlistment allotment "far over" its goal. In the
month after the wave, GOC volunteers in Massachusetts increased from
3500 on July 14th (the first day of Operation Skywatch ) to 7600
(Springfield Union [Ma.], August 25). Several hundred new recruits
signed up in Rhode Island (Providence Journal [R.I.], August 17). By no
means was the GOC up to its goals but a valiant upward trend had begun.
Another remarkable admission was made by the Air Force's Vice
Commander of the Eastern Air Defense Force, Brigadier General George
Smith, that low-flying aircraft could easily avoid radar detection
around the United States "and must be observed and plotted by ground
observers" (New York Herald-Tribune, August 1). One would not expect
publicly-admitted clues by the Air Force, then actively at odds with a
powerful Soviet Union, on how to defeat our national defenses, unless of
course the Air Force regarded a depleted GOC as a more serious national
security issue. Equally remarkable was an admission two days before as
to the inability of Air Force radar at Andrews Air Force Base in
Washington to detect the unknowns reported on radar by the civilian
scopes at Washington National Airport (Attleboro Sun [Ma.], July 29).
Of what possible good would these admissions be unless they were for a
higher purpose - to encourage support for a stronger Ground Observer
Corps.
DISCUSSION
----------
It is folly to be absolute about anything relating to UFOs.
Examples abound to support this. We can only follow a trail of
information left in the wake of the 1952 saucer wave to see if there was
a reason for why it happenned the way it did. We are suggesting that
the problems with the Ground Observer Corps program were serious enough
that using publicity about flying saucers as a tool to enhance the
program seemed not to be such an outrageous ideas as it sounds. The
wave has been a strange loose end demanding clarification. There is as
yet no smoking gun but many hints are on the record.
It would be difficult to say whether the government had planted
altogether false stories with the press to encourage the interest to
continue in flying saucers, therefore in skywatching, therefore in
volunteering with the Air Force. We can't point any fingers but we
can't rule it out either. The true anomalies, besides the saucer
reports themselves, lie in the lack of timely Air Force response to the
wave that was consistent with previous policy; the seemingly scandalous
admissions by the military of gaping holes in the technical aspects of
U.S. national security, admissions for which the ultimate resolution
appeared to be boosting the Air Force's pet program by whatever means
available; and the amount of immediate, behind-the-scenes information
coming from the government during the wave, the result being an
enthralled public excited about what was going on in our skies.
Do not underestimate the effect of the 1952 wave on popular
culture either. While it can be shown to have had long-term influence
on the military (the wave led directly to the Robertson Panel of the
CIA, setting the future debunking policy on flying saucers by the Air
Force), the influence on the population may have been more profound.
For example, one report (Boston Globe, September 7, 1952)
indicated that toy manufacturers preparing for the 1952 Christmas season
had taken note of an "unprecedented and furious upsurge of demand for
rocket ships, space helmets, flying saucers and other playthings of an
interplanetary nature." The children of America it seemed were weary of
cowboy an western paraphenalia, which had dominated toy manufacturing
for many years, and had switched their attention to extraterrestrial
travel and visitations. The reason for this? According to the Boston
Globe account, "The pre-occupation with space toys is of fairly recent
origin. It started with the mid-summer revival of news stories about
flying saucers. Now it has taken on such terrific proportions that it
threatens to upset the industries carefully laid plans for the Christmas
shopping rush."
Some television shows had dealt with space themes to this time,
the most notable being "Captain Video," debuting in 1949. But a
rippling effect on the popular culture wasn't there until the summer of
1952. Premiering in 1953 were three new space shows: "Atom Squad,"
"Rocky Jones, Space Ranger," and "Rod Brown of the Rocket Rangers"
(Fantastic Television by Gary Gerami and Paul Schulman, Harmony Books,
N.Y., 1977). The aim of this is not difficult to fathom, to satisfy the
new craze over space initiated by the great wave. Three more pioneering
space TV shows, "Commando Cody," "Captain Z-RO," and "Captain Midnight"
premiered in 1955. The cinema contributed films like "Invaders from
Mars" in 1953, loaded with flying saucer imagery and with allusions to
actual saucer reports that had appeared in the press. "Earth vs the
Flying Saucers" was another release in 1955. It can be easily argued
that these developments had an impact on young minds to the extent of
enticing them in later years to becoming involved in the blossoming
space program in the United States.
Optimism for space travel certainly wasn't fostered by the
scientific community or the clergy during the time of the sightings.
"Trip from Mars Would Take Three Years" (Quincy Patriot-Ledger [Ma.],
August5). "Only Vegetables Can Live on Mars" (Boston Globe, August 1).
"Trips to the Planets Doomed" (Boston Post, September 6). "Pope Doubts
Man's Ability to Resolve All Mysteries" (Hartford Courant [Ct.],
September 8). "Space Flights Put Many Years Away" (New York Times,
September 5). If the authorities in science and religion were actively
discouraging thoughts that space travel was imminent or that visitations
by aliens was ongoing, what else could have fueled the mania for space
at this time? Not much except the flying saucer wave. Whatever one
thinks of the phenomena, it is inarguable that it has had a major impact
on the culture, in books, in the press and just about every other medium
of mass communication. Even today, during ratings sweeps by television
and radio, two prime topics are used to garner ratings points: sex and
UFOs. Observe broadcasting during the months of November, February and
May and one will see an increase in UFO programs on talk shows. Perhaps
we could call this the modern version of passive manipulation - this
time by corporations seeking larger profits than by the government.
(see TV Guide, January 31, 1981, "Teen Sex! UFOs! Male Models! Details
at 11!").
A theory of passive manipulation would by its nature tend to be
subtle in its origin and execution, allowing the perpetrator to do
nothing but sit back and permit situations to evolve that would have
reasonably predictable outcomes. With regard to the flying saucers of
1952 it was not hard to predict how the press and the public would
react. Much like more recent years, it was a reaction of intense
interest and substantial publicity that for a time progressed in a
useful direction for the government. When it passed the point of being
acceptable to accomplishing the goals in mind, i.e. relieving the GOC
volunteer problem, a quick press conference deflated the ballooning
wave.
Whether by serendipity or by design, the saucer reports were
there when needed by the military. Once used in this manner, and
recognizing that such manipulation of the phenomena could create bigger
problems than it was worth later, flying saucers were reburied by the
Air Force as far as the public was concerned. The debunking policy took
over again in 1953 and stood until the end of the Air Force's official
investigations in 1969.
Many will recall the recent blockbuster film by Oliver Stone,
"JFK." During one scene the film's star, playing Attorney Jim
Garrison, meets with a shadowy figure calling himself "X." A former
military officer, "X" described a series of strange coincidences which
led him to believe that President John Kennedy had been killed by an
internal government conspiracy. One of the coincidences was that the
intelligence service of the Army was told to "stand down" during the
president's visit to Dallas, Texas in 1963. "Stand down," meaning not
to react, not to place operatives in the normal security locations to
protect the president, not to be alert to potential problems, to go on
as if nothing were happening. The result of course was that the
president was placed in harm's way, a form of passive manipulation
that, if true, helped to change history in a dramatic way.
We aren't going to revive the controversy over the JFK
assassination here. It is simply to emphasize that there are probably
many more examples of such passive manipulation on record, that the new
spin on an old story isn't such a new spin after all. The answer to the
intense publicity surrounding the 1952 saucer wave may have been there
all the time, it just took us forty-one years to wake up.
(Just Cause, Copyright 1994 by Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, PO Box 218,
Coventry, CT 06238, published bi-monthly with a subscription rate of
$15/yr.)
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
