Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:04:34 -0500
Subject: Transcription of letters from Dewey Fournet to NICAP and Mr. Melissinie about the EOTS
From: fran ridge <> &  Richard Vitello <>
To: Archive

PDF contains
1) Typed letter to NICAP
2) Handwritten letter 3-pages, May 25, 1992 to Mr. Melissine
3) Handwritten letter 4 pages, July 27, 1992 to Mr. Melissine
4) Blank page
5) Page 2 of a letter from Fournet to NICAP
6) 3 page letter from Robert Todd dated, Jan 9, 1976, to Sherman Larsen
7) Letter to Julian Hennessey, March 29, 1967, from Air Force PIO, Lt. Col. George Freeman

Retyped transcripts from items 1,2,3 are provided below to facilitate use by the site search engines.

Part 1 - The typed letter

At the request of Major Keyhoe I would like to confirm the existence of two USAF documents which were recently denied by an official USAF representative. They are:

1. An intelligence summary on UFOs prepared in 1948 by the organization which later became the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson AFB.

2. An intelligence analysis on specific aspects of UFO data which I prepared in 1952 while acting as UFO program monitor for Headquarters USAF, Washington, D. C.

Since both documents were classified when I last saw them, I am not at liberty to reveal their contents. I would also like to add a qualification about #2: I completed it in rough form just a few hours before my departure from Washington (following my release from active duty) and turned it over to one of my associates in the Directorate of Intelligence. Therefore, I never saw it in its published form. However, since I had prepared it ­ as well as other reports which I recorded on tape ­ at the specific request of my Branch and Division Chiefs, I am certain that it was published.

Another word of caution is necessary on the latter document: I prepared it primarily as a weapon for use against the apathy and/or bias on the subject which prevailed in certain official quarters. Although the processes of logic employed would stand up under ordinary circumstances, they become somewhat tenuous and difficult to defend completely when applied to the task in question. The important point should be, therefore, that such a document did exist ­ not that it did or did not establish anything about UFOs.

There is also a question about the report prepared by the panel of civilian scientists convened in January 1953 to examine the UFO data. I met with this panel during part of its deliberations; this was during the week when I was being processed off active duty. Since I had departed by the time the panel adjourned, I did not see any report which it may have prepared. However, since it was convened for the specific purpose of reviewing all available data and making recommendations on the UFO program, it must necessarily have left some sort of report, undoubtedly written. (I have since been informed that it did, although let me repeat that I never saw it.)

Dewey J. Fournet, Jr
Baton Rouge, La.
May 4, 1958


Part 2 - Handwritten letter transcripts

3-page letter of May 25, 1992

Dear Mr. Melissine,

I have your letter of 4th Feb before me and find that once again, I must begin my response with an apology for being so late in responding. Your letter arrived while I was in the midst of making final arrangements for our trip to Australia, and I simply didn't have time before departure to write. We were gone a number of weeks, and I've finally gotten caught up with all the things that required attention after our return, (this was the trip that we had to postpone for three consecutive years, starting in 1989, because of a series of health problems to one or the other of us. Since my wife is Australian, we try to return there for a visit every 2 or 3 years, but it had been years this time because of these past postponements.

The UFO "Estimate of the Situation" that you inquire about, as mentioned in Ed Ruppelt's book, did indeed exist. It (or a copy of it) was in the UFO files that I inherited when I became program monitor. It was prepared with the intention that it would proceed through channels to the AF Chief of Staff (I believe Gen. Vandenburg at that time. I think the time was early or mid 1948 or even 1949 but I'm not at all certain about this. It recapped all seemingly unexplainable UFO reports received by the AF to that time. It very explicitly mentioned that absolutely no artifacts had been

Page 2

recovered. It then went through all logical explanations for these sighting reports and concluded that the objects must be extraterrestrial in origin. Apparently this estimate was killed in channels or else failed to gain a favorable reaction at the top of the command chain because it sat there in the files, and no one had ever called it to my attention. I discovered it only during my research into the UFO background material. I'm sure it was still labeled Secret or Top Secret when I saw it, but this would have been a natural byproduct of the manner in which its conclusion was reached. There was deplorably little UFO sighting data at the time the estimate was prepared, and the conclusion reached was, in my opinion, the result of extreme extrapolation - - possibly the objective was to stir up enough interest in the USAF Intelligence to promote an organized and complete investigation, which was totally lacking at the time. In any case, I've never given that estimate much weight in the overall USAF UFO program simply because it occured too early in the investigation. I don't remember the color of the cover exceot that it was nothing unusual- - there were generally scores of these "estimates" there at any particular time. And my recollection is that this one wasn't especially thick, maybe 25 or 30 pages.

Page 3

Re your last question: have I ever written on UFOs in unpublished form? The answer is a firm "no", neither published nor unpublished. I did have a small, unorganized collection of material on UFOs, mostly as samples of some of the things that occurred but nothing that would encourage any sort of research because it was all disjointed. I turned all of this material over to Bill Pitts of Fort Smith, Arkansas before I moved to North Carolina. Bill is one of the few people that I've come across in the UFO field in recent years who has both feet on the ground and doesn't have some sort of an axe to grind. Now if I receive unsolicited UFO material, I offer it to Bill. One of the only things I have retained is an autographed copy of Ed Ruppelt's original book, and that is out on loan, to my daughter, I think.

I hope this has helped your efforts in some way, however small. My best to you,

Dewey Fournet


Wendy Connors

4 page letter of July 27, 1992

702 Red Oak Dr.
Hendersonville, NC 28739
Mon. 7/22/92

Dear Mr. Melissine,
I received your last letter a few days ago and will answer your questions to the best of my recollections. The report of which you sent me a copy is definitely NOT the after referred to "Estimate of the situation". This was strickly a "study" within the USAF Intelligence Organization (apart from a copy for OMI), as is clearly indicated by the reports title and its distribution. A copy was undoubtedly in the UFO files in my office, and I most probably scanned it at the very least, but I can't say that I remember it,
perhaps because its conclusions were rather unacceptable by late 1951- - we had generally considered by then that they would not be of foreign (i.e. the Soviets). On the other hand, the Estimate of the Situation (its actual name) was intented for disseminationup through channels to the USAF Chief of Staff. Whether it ever made it to that level, I'm not sure. It could have been disapproved and bounced back at any intervening echelon of commands. Its conclusion was that the most logical explantion was an extraterrestrial source, but I re-emphasize that this was quite tenuous at that stage and based on a very limited number of reports - - generally same order of magnitude as those cited in the Study you sent me.

- 2 -

The assumption that Al Chop would have seen either of these reports is incorrect. Al saw only those things that we thought he should see to handle public info requests. In very unusual and highly publisized cases, he was brought into the picture in detail and very early in the game - - e.g. the Newhouse movies. This was intented to enable him to handle the bulk of the inquiries without having to refer each one to us. As far as I know, Al never saw either of the reports under discussion, simply because neither was public knowledge until Ed Ruppelt's book was published, as far as I know.

I'm not terribly surprised to hear that your efforts on the Newhouse flim have been generally fruitless. The Naval photo lab had analyzed the original footage and reported that the emulsion had been completely burned off wherever an object appeared and, therefore, no details at all were discernable. Sorry to hear you've unable to locate Newhouse - - he could well be dead by now.

For your records, I did _not_ retire from the USAF, I had been recalled to active duty for the Korean conflict, and my tour of duty expired in January 1953. At that time, I resigned my commission for reason totally unrelated to my UFO assignment. When I departed in 1953, the basic UFO files were still in Ed Ruppelt's office (Blue Book) as part of the Air Technical Intgelligance

- 3 -

Center at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton. The less detailed files I had inherited in Washington remained, as far as I know, in the Air Technical Intellegence Branch files augmented possibly by closely related files in the current Intellegence Branch. I have no idea at all what may eventually have happened to any of these files.

Re  final questions: How was I selected as Blue Book Program Monitor? I suggest a number of elements were involved - - but I did not voluteer nor was I consulted beforehand; at some point I was simply told that henceforth I would take on the job of overseeing "flying saucer" investigations and analyze (both being handled by Ruppelt's Group) "in addition to many other duties", which was a continuing technical analysis of air material of a few foreign coutries, none of which were the Soviets or China or a major European power. To understand this properly, let me provide a little background. I was an officer in WWII for almost 4 years, the last 2 1/2 of which I was in the brand new type of activity, air technical intellegence (I was an aero engineer). I retained this MOS as a reservist after WWII. It was considered a xxxxxx MOS for the Korean conflict, as I was released to duty in 1951, going first to air command and Staff School at Maxwell AFB, then to my assignement with the Air Technical Intellegence Branch in the Pentagon. As the newest assignee in the Branch, I was given one of the least

- 4 -

demanding areas of coverage initially. After 2 or 3 months, the UFO coverage was added when the Lt.Colonal XXXX had been headling it was reassigned on normal "rotation".  I suggest I was chosen because (1) I had extensive field investigative and analytical expeience in WWII and (2) my normal assignment was one of the least demanding in the Branch. In the spring of 1952, with the horrendous UFO 1952 "flap" beginning I was relieved of my regular assignmentin Tech Intel and moved to the Current Intelligence Branch on nothing but UFO coverage. The reason for the move was to put me in the mainstream of USAF intelligence communications because there was some fear that the growing volume of UFO reporting traffic could possibly mock a Soviet air attack on the U.S.  I remained in that assignment until my relief from active duty in 1953. My assignment in the D of I was never considered a part of Blue Book per se. As I told you earlier, Blue Book was a part of ATIC at Wright-Patterson and therefore a part of Air Material Command. A more direct link with USAF D of I was needed, so this so-called Blue Book
program monitor position was created. Although Ruppelt and I worked closely together, we had no direct line relationship. I would make suggestions, and generally Ed would follow-up unless there was too much other activity. We also worked together on the report I presented to the Robertson Panel. Hope this helps.

Dewey Fournet


Other letters in the pdf have not been re-typed this date.