Of these, the cases of UFOs being detected by the senses and confirmed by instrument generally are considered the most significant. Examples would include UFOs observed visually, which apparently caused electro-magnetic interference at the same time; simultaneous radar-visual sightings; UFOs reliably observed and also photographed. The cases in this section generally involve detection of a UFO by more than one of the human senses, or by the human senses substantiated by some, instrument.

The human organism itself is a rudimentary scientific instrument. When a person not only sees something, but also experiences physiological effects of it, an extra dimension is added to the observation. If the effects are objectively verifiable by other persons, so much the better. If a UFO is reliably observed, and also leaves physical markings or traces, this adds an objective factor to the report.

Another way of analyzing UFO sightings is to consider what they affect. A sighting may affect only the human senses; it may also affect machines or instruments (causing electro-magnetic interference in an automobile, leaving an image on film, or showing up on radar); or it may affect nature (leaving physical markings or substances on the ground). The strongest cases would be ones involving several of these aspects.  

In June 1960 NICAP published a booklet listing and analyzing reported cases in which electrical circuits were disrupted in the presence of UFOs. [1.] This phenomenon was first widely reported during the widespread sightings of November 1957 [See Section XII], but subsequent research uncovered additional cases which occurred before and after the 1957 cases. The E-M report, concluding that the evidence was "sufficient to warrant a more thorough investigation of UFOs, and an attempt to learn more about the E -M phenomenon through deliberate instrumentation for that purpose," was circulated to several hundred interested parties, including scientists and members of Congress.

The E-M Report was a study of 81 main cases, plus 9 borderline cases which had some characteristics in common with the main cases. It was suggested that there were no doubt other similar experiences, either buried in the literature somewhere or unreported due to poor news coverage of UFO sightings at times. In the intervening 3-1/2 years, an additional 39 cases have been discovered. Thirty-two of these had occurred before the June 1960 publication date of the E-M Report; seven have occurred since. Where sufficient information was available to justify their inclusion, the newly discovered cases have been added to the original chronology. The combined listing of cases is reproduced below.

The recent discovery that electrical circuits were upset by upper atmosphere atomic tests during 1961-62 leads to interesting speculation, and makes a definite scientific experiment feasible, concerning the manner in which UFOs could affect electrical circuits. These points are discussed following the chronology of E-M cases.

The cases listed here represent reports in which a distinct UFO, either a plainly visible object or light source (not merely diffuse or intermittent flashes of light), was observed at the same time and place that a definite electro-magnetic effect (E-M) such as a car-stalling occurred. Cases added since publication of the June 1960 report are denoted by a plus sign (+). (Sources appear under Note 2 at the end of the section).

E-M Cases (Continued)

(a) July 6, 1947; Acampo, Calif. All lights in community went out, as citizens heard a roaring noise and saw a glow in the sky.

(b) July 20, 1952; Cumberland, Md. Engineer reported unusual type of TV interference. Occurred within a few hours of the famous Washington, D.C., UFO sightings all over D.C. - Virginia area.

(c) January 21, 1957; Bristol, England. TV pictures disrupted and noise heard on audio; same time as fiery light in sky with rays running through it. (Aurora?)

(d) January 27, 1957; Glendora, Calif. Unexplained power failure. Two UFOs reported same night in general area.

(e) May 7, 1957; New York, N.Y. TV disrupted, citizens complained about low-flying "aircraft". Commercial test plane blamed, but Air Force reported several unidentified blips on radar.

(f) September 1, 1957; LeMars, Iowa. Car motor and headlights failed, as flash of light seen in sky.

(g) November 2 or 3, 1957; Las Cruces, N.M. Car motor and headlights failed twice as witness, a UFO skeptic, saw flashes of light in the sky. Witness blamed it on "static atmosphere."

(h) November 28, 1957; Hakalau, Hawaii. Car motor failed, driver felt numb, as bright flash of light appeared in sky about 20 feet above highway ahead of car.

(i) December 1, 1957; Ann Arbor, Michigan. Telephone lines affected by odd noise in Detroit area, as numerous red lights observed in sky. (Aurora?)

(j) Approximately August 16, 1958; Olean, N.Y. and Eldred, Penna. Strange noise lasting one minute heard on short wave, 2C meter band, in Olean. UFO seen in nearby Eldred about same time.

(k) December 7, 1959; Bangor, Me. Airport runway lights went out, airliner circling over field reported unexplained blinding glow around plane.

During the summer of 1963 the story broke that Russian nuclear tests of 1961-1962 in the atmosphere had knocked out the electronic equipment on board a U.S. satellite in space, [3.] Publicity about this little-known side effect of high-yield nuclear explosions immediately led to speculation on the military applications of it. A prominent magazine on space activities later that year reported that the Soviet Union might be developing an anti-ballistic missile system based on the E-M effects of nuclear blasts. [4.]

The main significance of this discovery, in relation to UFOs, is that it provides a clue about how UFOs might affect the electrical systems of automobiles. American scientists have theorized that an "electromagnetic pulse" is emitted by large nuclear explosions at high altitude. John Crittenden, General Electric consultant on radiation, has stated: "The detonation of (nuclear) weapons produces radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The prompt gamma pulse will affect electronic devices sensitive to ionization, and the radio-frequency signal propagated carries enough energy to damage electronic circuits drastically. . ." Mr. Crittenden added that a one-megaton explosion in space could affect electronic systems over a radius of 110 miles or more.

In testimony before the House Committee on Science & Astronautics, major aerospace firms have strongly advocated the development of an atomic engine for use in the U.S. space program. [5.] Douglas Aircraft Corporation, for example, citing the inefficiency and great expense of normal rocket boosters, stated: "A gross reduction of these costs will come only with the development of a propulsion system with truly superior performance. Only then will extensive manned space travel on an interplanetary scale be practical. In our opinion, the greatest immediate hope for such an improvement may be found in nuclear propulsion systems. . ." [6.]

The energy locked up in matter, obviously, is universal. UFOs could plausibly have some nuclear propulsion component, perhaps controlled explosions which incidentally interfere with electrical circuits under certain conditions. (Another conceivable explanation for the E-M effects observed in the presence of UFOs is that some atomic device or weapon on board is used deliberately and selectively, as a test or for other purposes. However, this is purely speculative).

The fact remains that is is not necessary to postulate a "mysterious force" in some mystical sense to account for the observed effects. An atomic device capable of producing the observed effects is now technologically feasible. Even if this were not the case, it is false logic for a scientist to deny observations on the grounds that we cannot fully explain the mechanism involved in E-M effects. Taken in association with the other accumulated evidence about UFOs, the fact that we do have difficulty explaining the E-M effects could also mean that we are dealing with a superior technology about which we know very little.

1. "Electro- Magnetic Effects Associated With Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)," by Washington, D.C., Subcommittee of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena. June 1960.
2. E-M Cases, by Case Numbers:
    E-l. Stringfield, Leonard H.; Inside Saucer Post. . .3-0 Blue. (4412 Grove Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio).
    E-2. Time; May 9, 1949.
    E-3. Tulsa, Okla., Tribune; 12-1-57
    E-4. Lorenzen, Coral; The Great Flying Saucer Hoax. (William-Frederick Press, N.Y. 1962), ppg. 19-22.
    E-5. Report to NICAP
    E-6. Miller, Max B. (1420 So. Ridgley Drive, Los Angeles, Calif.).
    E-7. Report to NICAP
    E-8. Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (4145 East Desert Place, Tucson, Arizona).
    E-9. Report to NICAP
    E-10. Faria, J Escobar (Rua General Mena Barreto, 527, Sao Paulo, Brazil).
    E-11. Lancaster, Pa., Intelligence Journal; 9-17-54.
    E-12. New Orleans Item; 9-21-54.
    E-13. Michel, Aime, Flying Saucers and the Straight Line Mystery. (Criterion, 1958), p.143.
    E-14. Ibid., p.150.
    E-15. Ibid., p.157.
    E-16. Ibid., p.158.
    E-17. Ibid., p.160.
    E-18. Ibid., p.175.
    E-19. Ibid., p.185.
    E-20. Ibid., p.198.
    E-21. Ibid., p.203.
    E-22. Ibid., p.204
    E-23. CRIFO Newsletter; December 3, 1954 (Stringfield, Leonard H. See address above).
    E-24. Michel, Aime; op. cit., p.204.
    E-25. Ibid., p.211.
    E-26. North East Breeze (weekly); week of December 5, 1954.
    E-27. Keyhoe, Donald E.; Flying Saucer Conspiracy. (Holt, 1955), p.249.
    E-28. Ibid., p.265.
    E-29. CSI (67 Jane Street, New York, N.Y.); Michel, Aime; op. cit., p.236.
    E-30. Indianapolis Star; 8-27-55.
    E-31. Flying Saucer Review; Sept.-Oct., 1955 (1 Doughty Street, W.C. 1, London, England).
    E-32. Report to NICAP
    E-33. Fulton, H. H., New Zealand NICAP Adviser (from Japan News).
    E-34. CRIFO Orbit (formerly "Newsletter"); Sept. 7, 1956.
    E-35. Trench, Brinsley le Poer; Ed.; World UFO Roundup. (Citadel, 1958), ppg. 96-97.
    E-36. Mobridge, S.D., Tribune, 11-22-50; Bowman, N.D., Pioneer, 11-22-56.
    E-37. Report to NICAP (from Air Force Intelligence Report).
    E-38. Thiroum, Marc; Ouranos. (27 Rue Etienne-Dolet, Bondy, Seine, France)
    E-39. Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO).
    E-40. Report to NICAP.
    E-41. Trench, Brinsley le Poer; op. cit., ppg 102-103.
    E-42. Report to NICAP.
    E-43. APRO Bulletin; September 1959.
    E-44. Associated Press; 11-4-57
    E-45. Casper, Wyo., Tribune-Herald; 11-5-57. Also Report to NICAP.
    E-46. Charlotte, N.C., Observer; 11-4-57.
    E-47. Hobbs, N.M., News-Sun; 11-5-57.
    E-48. Amarillo Daily News; 11-4-57.
    E-49. Associated Press; 11-3-57, etc.
    E-50. Winnipeg Tribune; 11-7-57.
    E-51. Faria, J Escobar, Brazilian NICAP Adviser.
    E-52. APRO Bulletin; September 1959.
    E-53. Chicago Tribune; 11-5-57.
    E-54. Toronto Daily Star; 11-5-57.
    E-55. Clark, Terry; "The Day All Roads Led to Alamogordo," Writer's Digest, December 1957, Associated Press; 11-4-57, etc.
    E-56. Anchorage, Alaska, Daily News; 11-4-57.
    E-57. Report to NICAP
    E-58. San Antonio Light; 11-6-57.
    E-59. Amarillo News; 11-7-57.
    E-60. Report to NICAP.
    E-61. El Paso, Texas, Times; 11-7-57.
    E-62. Aurora, Ill., Beacon-News; 11-7-57.
    E-63. Marietta, Ohio, Times; 11-6-57.
    E-64. Associated Press; 11-6-57.
    E-65. Houston Chronicle; 11-6-S?.
    E-66. Santa Fe New Mexican; 11-6-57.
    E-67. Hammond, Ind., Times; 11-7-57.
    E-68. Report to NICAP.
    E-69. CSI Newsletter #10 (see address above).
    E-70. Michel, Aime; op. cit., p.263.
    E-71. APRO Bulletin; November 1957.
    E-72. Ibid.
    E-73. Hammond, Ind., Times; 11-13-S?.
    E-74. Plymouth, N.H., Record; 11-14-57.
    E-75. Hazelton, Pa., Plain Speaker; 11-13-57.
    E-76. Chicago American, 11-15-57; St. Louis Post Dispatch, 11-15-57; etc.
    E-77. Faria, J. Escobar (Sao Paulo, Brazil).
    E-78. Ibid.
    E-79. Ellensburg, Wash., Daily Record; 12-4-57.
    E-80. Ontario Daily Nugget; 12-4-57.
    E-81. Grant County, Wash., Journal; 12-10-57.
    E-82. Report to NICAP.
    E-83. UFO Bulletin, March 1958. (Box 1120, G.P.O., Sydney, N.S.W., Australia).
    E-84. La Prensa, 2-1-58; United Press.
    E-85. Lorenzen, Coral; op. cit., ppg. 143-144.
    E-86. Report to NICAP.
    E-87. Faria, J. Escobar (from Italian newspapers).
    E-88. Faria, J. Escobar.
    E-89. Takanashi, June'Ichi; Modern Space Flight Association (8-0-2, Sakurazuka Higashi, Toyonaka-City, Osaka, Ja pan).
    E-90. Report to NICAP. Also Baltimore newspapers, 10-27-58
    E-91. Greenville, Pa., Record-Argus; 1-31-59.
    E-92. Flying Saucer Review; Sept.-Oct., 1050.
    E-93. Associated Press; 2-26-59.
    E-94. Gallipolis, Ohio, Daily Tribune; 3-20-59.
    E-95. APRO Bulletin, November 1059.
    E-96. Report to NICAP.
    E-97. APRO Bulletin; September 1059.
    E-98. Lorenzen, Coral; op. cit., ppg. 175-176.
    E-99. Bolton, Whitney; Newark Evening News, 11-5-50.
    E-100. Grand Forks, N.D., Herald; 1-21-60.
    E-101. Report to NICAP.
    E-102. Flying Saucer Review; March-April, 1962.
    E-103. Ibid Nov.-Dec., 1962.
    E-104. Report to NICAP.
    E-105. San Francisco Examiner 11-8-63.
    E-106. Carson City Nevada Appeal; 11-14-63.
     (a) Portland Oregonian; 7-7-47.
     (b) Associated Press; 7-28-52.
     (c) Trench, Brinsley le Poer; op. cit., ppg. 115-116.
     (d) Glendora, Calif., Press; 1-31-57.
     (e) Washington Star; 5-8-57, 5-0-57.
     (f) Miller, Max B. Saucers, Winter 1957/58 (see address above).
     (g) Houston Chronicle; 11-7-57
     (h) Honolulu Star-Bulletin; 11-29-57
     (i) Ann Arbor, Mich., News; 12-2-57.
     (j) Buffalo, N.Y., Courier Express; 8-16-58.
     (k) Portland, Me., Press-Herald; 12-8-59.
3. St. Louis Globe-Democrat; July 30, 1968
4. Missiles & Rockets; September 16, 1003
5. Space Propulsion Technology, Hearings before the Committee on Science & Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 1st Session; No. 4, Committee Print, 1061
6. Ibid., p.216.

Unidentified targets have been detected by radar on numerous occasions. Air Force radar-scope photographs of UFOs are classified (see box), but the facts of many radar observations have been published. The question is, what causes the unexplained "blips" on the scope? On the whole, theorists have tended to attribute all such reports to the vagaries of radar. This view is challenged here.

NICAP's position is that the radar-UFO reports, after all, were made largely by experienced radar operators who were convinced they had tracked something solid and unexplained. The conflict amounts to data versus theory, with most theorists all too prone to assume that radar operators are incompetent.

It is a well-known fact that false (or misleading) images can appear on radar scopes. However, if these could not be distinguished from the blips of solid targets, radar would be a use less instrument. Also, lights and objects have been observed visually in the positions where radar indicated the presence of unexplained objects. The theorists' ad hoc arguments to account for this aspect of the reports leave much to be desired.

What can radar detect? How do different phenomena appear on the scope? What are so-called radar "angels?" These questions are analyzed following the chart which includes the controversial cases under discussion.

Except for cases of so-called "anomalous propagation"--false radar targets caused by bending or refraction of radar signals- - UFO targets on radar constitute objective confirmation of the reality of unexplained objects in the atmosphere. Some research reports have tended to explain-away radar UFO sightings as 'false targets. . .f sometimes caused by] a low angle radar beam......reflected from one surface to another before retracing its path to the radar." [66] Unexplained radar targets have been observed since the early days of radar.

Some evaluations of this phenomenon appear to be more a rationalization of troublesome reports than objective studies of them. Facts of observation seemingly are ignored or glossed over in order to make a theory fit. A prime example of this procedure is the study by the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) of the famous July 1952 radar sightings over Washington, D.C. [67]. The CAA report concludes that the Washington sightings were "ground returns caused by reflection phenomena closely connected with the temperature inversions in the lower atmosphere."

Table 1 of the CAA report, 'Tabulation of Unidentified Radar Targets and Visual Objects Reported to Washington ARTC Center," includes one case for May, twenty-two for July, and 11 for August. Yet the text goes into detail on, and bases its conclusions on, only reports for the nights of August 14/15 and August 15/16. Unlike the July cases, there were no visual sightings on these nights and the recorded speeds were extremely slow (about 24-70 m.p.h.) The characteristics of the phenomena on these nights, and the lack of visual sightings, do resemble so-called "angels" (which are themselves little understood non-visual phenomena). By contrast, many of the July cases involved objects tracked in high-speed flight and also observed visually by pilots exactly where radar showed the objects to be.

Evaluations of this kind, aside from their glaring omissions of data and questionable reasoning, fail to take into account two vitally important points: (1) Because of the long history of false radar targets, they and their characteristics are well-known to experienced radar operators. (2) The bending of radar beams and creation of false targets on the scope cannot explain sustained radar-visual sightings. If a pilot sees a light source or object which changes its angular position radically, and ground radar shows a target maneuvering as described right where the pilot is looking, this cannot be explained in terms of the erratics of radar.

Because it is known that false targets do occur on radar screens which can be misinterpreted by inexperienced operators, radar- visual sightings in general are more significant evidence than reports lacking visual confirmation. As in all other aspects of UFO investigation, it is necessary to weed out erroneous reports and to recognize that human error is possible. But the same logic often applied to UFOs in general seems to be used by skeptics on radar cases: Because error is possible, and because some people definitely have been mistaken, all the reports are false. This is known as throwing out the baby with the bath-water.  

In general, a blip on radar always corresponds to a reflection off of some solid (or liquid) surface, though that surface may not be where the radar scope indicates it to be. The surface may be (a) a mass of raindrops in a cloud in the position where radar shows it to be; (b) a solid object in the air in the position where radar shows it to be; (c) something on the ground, reflecting back to the scope and only seeming to be an object in the air. The latter explanation commonly is invoked to account for all radar UFO reports.

This highlights the real problem of radar sightings: Interpretation of the scope by radar operators. The phenomenon most subject to misinterpretation is the ''ducting" effect, where low-angle radar beams are bent around the earth's curvature. An object which would ordinarily be out of radar range might then be detected, and mistaken for something which seems to be closer and in a different position. A radar set can pick up echoes of its beam which have bounced around from more than one reflecting surface, and back to the antenna. In a case of this type, it would be severely strained coincidence for an unidentified object to be sighted visually in the same position as the false radar target.

Weather targets on radar may be ruled out generally as a source of false UFO reports. Clouds and cold fronts are not detected by radar, except for rain-carrying clouds, in which case it is the moisture (precipitation) which is detected. An Air Force manual on the subject states '' , . in general, strong radar echoes will be returned only from air of high specific humidity in which intense convective activity releases water in large amounts." [68] The echoes received are ''false" only in the sense of not representing solid airborne objects. They are real liquid objects collectively acting as reflectors of the radar beam.

Section II, Paragraph 15 of the Air Force manual discusses "Interpretation of Echoes." In general, weather targets show up as diffuse masses on the radar screen, and their origin is easily recognizable.

Dense nimbostratus from which rain is falling, the manual states, can be detected to short or moderate ranges......echoes from nimbostratus usually appear on the PPI [Plan Position Indicator] scope as a mass of brightness concentrated about the center of the scope and merging into the blackness of the outer rings. . . there are many breaks and irregularities in the pattern since rain does not fall uniformly over even a small area."

A recent example of radar angels occurred at the NASA Wallops Island, Virginia, base during the Spring of 1962. The observations were analyzed by the Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, for the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory. [69] The analysts theorized that "plate- like" objects could explain the observations, but commented: "It is difficult to conceive of foreign objects in the atmosphere having this plate-like shape. It is even more difficult to imagine that such objects would invariably maintain a consistent horizontal orientation while passing over the radar station.

Although it is clear that radar angels have not been satisfactorily explained, the Center suggested that "most" of them were "caused either by very smooth layers of refractive index gradient or by a single intense [atmospheric] discontinuity.

What are radar "angels". Used in its broadest sense, the term applies to all unidentified targets on radar. But this terminology is misleading, since the targets have been of three basic and distinct types: (1) Diffuse and intermittent targets probably attributable to meteorological effects; (2) Sharp, "solid" targets which give a persistent blip exactly like that of a moving metallic aircraft (sometimes also observed visually); (3) groups of targets, usually in very slow-moving meandering swarms, for which there are no known visual observations. We prefer to adopt the terminology of CSI, a UFO investigation group in New York City, and call the third type "angels;" the second "UFOs."

The research section of CSI has published an excellent analysis of radar angels; pertinent extracts are quoted here.

Typical "angels" are characterized by being gregarious, slow-traveling (30-60 mph.), and much more conspicuous to radar than to the eye - in fact, it may be that no one has ever seen them except on a radarscope. They have been observed ever since 1943, when microwave radar was first being developed, and they have never been acceptably explained.

The celebrated Washington radar sightings of July 1952 occurred during a period when typical angels were being seen there abundantly (for details, see C.A.A. Technical Report #180, Note 67).

The radar visibility of birds happens to be known; it is very much less than that of angels. Birds (and a fortiori, flocks of birds) can be detected on a powerful radar set - at distances up to mile or two. Bonham and Blake, authors of an earlier claim that angels could be identified with birds (Scientific Monthly, April 1956), admitted that the visually-confirmed birds

they were able to pick up on radar were at distances "considerably less than a mile." Yet all authors agree that angels are clearly visible at distances of 25 miles or even more. If the "bird" theory is correct, it must be possible to show that ordinary aircraft-control radar can "see" a bird 25 miles away. No evidence that this is true has ever been presented, and no practicing radar operator will take such a suggestion seriously for a moment.

Something that appears only sporadically, like angels, can not - in the name of simple common sense - be identified with something that is around all the time, like birds. That the bird-theorists can ignore difficulties as fundamental as this one only shows us once again how irrational the human mind can be when confronted by facts that point to some conclusion it does not wish to accept.

The other leading "orthodox" idea about angels is that they are "refractive-index inhomogeneities of various types," in the words of a valuable though turgidly-written article by Vernon 0. Plank of the Air Force's Cambridge Research Center (Bedford, Mass.) in Electronics of March 14, 1958. Plank, like Harper, nails his thesis to the mast in his title: ''Atmospheric   Angels Mimic Radar Echoes." As for birds, he informs us that they have "radar cross-sections as large as 20 sq. cm at S-Band. . Radar cross-sections of the non-wind-carried sources range as large as 700 sq. cm at L-Band.

Birds cannot explain echoes with such large indicated radar cross-sections. There must be other sources." (In other words: the angels give a radar echo far stronger than that from a bird). This confirms what we have said above about the applicability of the bird theory

But when Plank puts forward "convective bubbles, highly refractive portions of atmospheric layers and water-vapor or temperature anomaly regions" as his candidates, he is shutting his eyes to known impossibilities just as the bird-men have done. Not only are such atmospheric phenomena obviously incapable of flying counter to the wind, but they are known to be just as incapable as birds of producing the sharp, relatively intense "angel" echoes. To quote Herbert Goldstein in the authoritative Radiation Laboratory treatise Propagation of Short Radio Waves, ed. D. E. Kerr (McGraw-Hill, 1951):

"In Section 7.4 it is shown that the refractive index gradients believed to exist in the atmosphere are much too low to account for the observed echoes." .

"Then there are radar flying saucers. ' Plank continues. Here he cites no detail, and has only two remarks to make. "The classic saucer incidents over Washington in July, 1952, for example, occurred when the atmosphere was exceedingly super-refractive and spotty anomalous propagation was de- finitely in order.". . . (In reality, there was only a moderate inversion on those nights, and "spotty anomalous propagation" is a purely imaginary phenomenon. It has never been known to occur.  There is no theoretical basis for believing that it could occur, and it would have had no resemblance to the Washington sightings if it did occur.) Plank's other 'saucer mechanism" (as he calls it) is the suggestion that real aircraft may generate ghost images by reflection to and back from some radar mirror on the ground, thus producing a phantom echo that might seem to accompany the plane. The accompanying diagram from the original article shows that Plank is unconscious of the optical grotesquerie of what he is proposing. Quite apart from that, he has not stopped to think that if this could happen at all, it would happen all the time, and would be a perfectly familiar nuisance to the radar men.

The idea that reflection from refractive index gradients could account for radar UFO reports is also challenged by Merrill J. Skolnik, a scientist associated with the Research Division of Electronic Communications, Inc. In a 1962 book on the subject of radar, Mr. Skolnik states: ". . . there must be a large change in the index of refraction over a very short distance to account for the observed radar targets.. Unfortunately, the refractive-index gradients required by the theory are much greater than have been measured experimentally, and it has not been possible on this basis to account for the observed angel radar cross sections theoretically." [70] One of the persons consulted in preparing this report was a veteran Air Force radar operator, a Sgt. First Class, who has operated sets all over the world. He has also tracked unidentified targets, at White Sands, N.M.; in Detroit, Michigan; and during NATO maneuvers overseas. He stated that he had observed some "solid unidentified targets moving at variable speeds, up to 500 mph." He had observed targets which disappeared and reappeared on his scope. Sometimes the objects simply moved out of range.

Ionized air "islands," which are commonly invoked to explain radar-UFO reports, he said were easily recognizable. Their blips "pile up" and they tend to develop a comet-like tail on the screen. Birds, he said, cause no problem even to novice operators fresh out of radar school. The targets which caused problems were those which exactly resembled a solid object, when there was no known aerial device in the position indicated. Special records are kept of all such sightings. Usually, in a case of this type, jets are scrambled and other radar stations along the path of the UFO notified.

Another consultant, David L. Morgan, Jr. (physicist), Madison, Connecticut, submitted a paper to NICAP which he preferred to term "thoughts on the matter" rather than a detailed scientific study. In it, Mr. Morgan approached the question of radar-UFO targets theoretically, based on a general knowledge of physics. Citing hypothetical cases of different types of images which appear on radar screens, he analyzed each in terms of the probability that they could be explained by weather phenomena.

Mr. Morgan independently concluded that the cases of an unexplained radar target pacing an aircraft could not be explained by an echo from the aircraft to another surface, and back to the radar set. "If a large, stationary ground object did this," he states, "it would always do it and this would be familiar to the radar operator. If the [radar-detected] object were a meteorological condition such as an ionized layer of air, it is highly doubtful that the reflection would be regular enough to give a consistent appearance, and sharp enough to prevent the blip from spreading in a radial direction."

In summary, Mr. Morgan stated: "It may be said that highly specialized UFO patterns on radar scopes can be explained only by highly unlikely or even impossible meteorological conditions. In the case of inversions, it is further unlikely that a specialized condition would exist without the simultaneous presence of less specialized conditions that would immediately be recognized as coming from an inversion.

Having examined various known phenomena which produce blips on radar, and theoretical attempts to account for unknown targets, a closer look at some of the radar-UFO reports is in order.

Summer 1948; Goose Bay, Labrador

Major Edwin A. Jerome, USAF (Ret.) reported the following information to NICAP in 1961. Major Jerome was a Command Pilot, Air Provost Marshal for about 8 years, and also served as an Intelligence Officer and CID Investigator.

"My only real contact with the UFO problem was way back in the summer of 1948 while stationed at Goose Bay, Labrador. There an incident happened which is worthy of note. It seems that a high-ranking inspection team was visiting the radar facilities of this base whose mission at the time was to serve as a prime refueling and servicing air base for all military and civilian aircraft plying the north Atlantic air routes. GCA [Ground Control Approach radar] was a critical part of this picture, thus these high-ranking officers   RCAF & USAF up to the rank of General as I recall.

"While inspecting the USAF radar shack, the operator noted a high-speed target on his scope going from NE to SW. Upon computation of the speed it was found to be about 9000 mph. This incident caused much consternation in the shack since obviously this was no time for levity or miscalculations in the presence of an inspecting party. The poor airman technician was brought to task for his apparent miscalculation. Again the target appeared and this time the inspectors were actually shown the apparition on the radar screen. The only reaction to this was that obviously the American equipment was way off calibration.

"The party then proceeded to the Canadian side to inspect the RCA"' GCA facility Upon their arrival the OIC related

this most unbelievable target they had just seen. The inspecting officers were appalled that such a coincidence should happen. I was part of the meager intelligence reporting machinery at the base and I was called in to make an immediate urgent intelligence report on the incident. The prevailing theory at the time was that it was a meteor. I personally discounted this since upon interviewing the radar observers on both sides of the base they stated that it maintained an altitude of 60,000 feet and a speed of approximately 9000 mph.

To make this story more incredible the very next day both radars again reported an object hovering over the base at about 10 mph, at 45,000 feet. The "official" story on this was that they were probably some type of "high-flying sea gulls." You must remember all these incidents happened before the days of fast high flying jets and missiles and the now common altitude record-breaking helicopters."

(Maj. Jerome then added: "On my recent tour in Alaska [circa 1960], I became very familiar with the early warning and air defense systems on the DEW Line and Alaska Air Defense Sectors. Many times high speed unknown objects were discerned which could not be explained as normal air breathing vehicles penetrating our sectors. Many of the citizens of Alaska along the Bering Sea Coast have reported seeing missile-like aircraft flying at very low altitudes at very high speeds. The AF denied the presence of Russian aircraft vehemently. When it was suggested that they might be extra-terrestrial everyone clammed up.")

October 15, 1948; Japan

Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt reported the following case received by Project Sign (the original Air Force UFO investigation project) in October 1948.

An F-61 "Black Widow" night fighter on patrol over Japan, October 15, picked up an unidentified radar target. The UFO was traveling about 200 mph. between 5000 and 6000 feet. Each time the F-61 tried to close in, the object would accelerate to an estimated 1200 mph., outdistancing the interceptor before slowing down again. On one of six passes at the UFO, the crew of the F-61 got close enough to see its silhouette. The UFO appeared to be 20-30 feet long and shaped "like a rifle bullet."

November 23, 1948; Fursten-Feldbruck, Germany

An unidentified object resembling a reddish light was sighted east of the base at 2200 hours, local time. Capt. [names deleted from Air Force reports] said the UFO was moving south across Munich, turned southwest, then southeast. Not knowing the height, the speed could not be estimated; but it appeared to be traveling between 200 and 600 mph.

Capt. reported the sighting to base operations, and the radar station checked its scope. An unidentified target, traveling 900 mph., was detected at 27,000 feet about 30 miles south of Munich. Capt. _____ verified that the UFO was now visible in that area. Radar then reported that the target had climbed quickly to 50,000 feet and was circling 40 miles south of Munich.

March 8, 1950; Nr Dayton, Ohio

In mid-morning, the CAA received a report from Capt. W. H. Kerr, Trans-World Airways pilot, that he and two other TWA pilots had a UFO in sight. A gleaming object was visible, hovering at high altitude. CAA also had 20 or more reports on the UFO from the Vandalia area. Wright-Patterson AFB, near Dayton, was notified, and sent up four interceptors. The UFO was also visible to control tower operators and personnel of Air Technical Intelligence Center on the base. Radar had an unidentified target in the same position.

Two F-51 pilots reported that they could see the UFO, which presented a distinct round shape and seemed huge and metallic. But clouds moved in, and the pilots were forced to turn back. The Master Sergeant who tracked it on radar stated: "The target was a good solid return. . . caused by a good solid target.' Witnesses reported that the UFO finally climbed vertically out of sight at high speed.

July 14, 1951; White Sands, N.M.

During the morning two radar operators at a missile tracking site caught a fast-moving object on their scope. At the same time a tracker watching a B-29 with binoculars saw a large UFO near the bomber. Another observer sighted the UFO and, with a 35 mm camera, shot 200 feet of film. The UFO showed on the film as a round, bright spot. (The film has never been released.)

Fall 1951; Korean Area

Following are extracts from a letter to NICAP dated May 16, 1957, signed by Lt. Cmdr. M. C. Davies, U.S.N., then stationed at the U. S. Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida.

My background is a Naval Aviator with approximately 4000 hours. At the time of the incident I was deployed with an Anti-Submarine Squadron aboard a CVE class carrier. I was assigned Air Crew Training Officer and prior to deployment had attended CIC Air Controller School at Point Loma, also Airborne Air Controller School and Airborne Early Warning School both located at NAS, San Diego.

It was at night, I was riding with a radar operator which I often did to check on their proficiency. We were flying at 5000 feet, solid instruments, with our wingman flying a radar position about 3 miles astern and slightly to our right or left. The target, which was slightly larger than our wingman, I picked up on our scope, had been circling the fleet; it left the fleet and joined up on us a position behind our wingman, approximately the same position he held on us.

I reported the target to the ship and was informed that the target was also held on the ship's radars, 14 in number; and for us to get a visual sighting if possible. This was impossible because of the clouds. The target retained his relative position for approximately 5 minutes and then departed in excess of one thousand miles per hour. He departed on a straight course and was observed to the maximum distance of my radar which was two hundred miles.

Upon completion of my flight an unidentified flying object report was completed, at which time I was informed that the object was held on ship's radars for approximately seven hours.

July 1, 1952; Ft. Monmouth, N.J.

A radar tracking of two UFOs at Fort Monmouth, N. J. was one of a series of sightings which fit a definite pattern. It occurred at a time when the Air Force was swamped with UFO reports - good ones. [See Section XII, 1952 Chronology.] Also, it was the first of ten known incidents of UFOs tracked by radar during July 1952. (See chart).

The sequence of events, reported by the Air Force UFO project chief, was as follows.

7:30 a.m. Boston, Mass. A couple in nearby Lynn and an Air Force Captain in Bedford saw two F-94's which had been scrambled on an intercept mission. The Captain saw one and the couple saw two silvery cigar-shaped UFOs, which moved southwest across Boston, out speeding the jets.

9:30 a.m., Ft. Monmouth, N. J. Radar tracked two UFO targets, also observed visually as two shiny objects. The UFOs approached slowly from the northeast, and hovered nearby at 50,000 feet for about 5 minutes.. Suddenly the blips on the scope accelerated and shot away to the southwest, confirmed by visual observation.

A few hours later, Washington, D. C. A physics professor at George Washington University, and dozens of others, saw a grayish UFO bobbing back and forth in the sky about 30-40 degrees above the north-northwest horizon.

None of the sightings could be explained.

August 5, 1952; Haneda AFB, Japan

Just before midnight, two Air Force control tower operators noticed a brilliant light in the sky, and joined others watching it through binoculars. The UFO approached the base slowly and hovered, plainly visible from the control tower. Behind the brilliant light, the observers could see a dark circular shape

four times the light's diameter. A smaller body light was visible on the underside. The object was tracked by ground radar, and an F-94 interceptor obtained a radar lock-on while chasing it. At one point, the UFO suddenly raced away at a clocked speed of 300 knots (about 345 mph.), dividing into three separate radar targets at spaced intervals. Contact with the UFO either by radar or visually, was maintained for over 30 minutes. During this period, scattered witnesses saw the UFO exactly where radar showed it to be. Conclusion: Officially "unknown."

1951-1952 Period; East Coast Air Force Base

Confidential report, certified by Rev. Albert H. Baller, German Congregational Church, Clinton, Mass.

Extracts from letter by Air Force Control Tower Operator to Rev. BaIler, dated March 10, 1954:

"About 3 a.m., on a clear moonlit night, a buddy of mine who was radar operator on the same night shift called me rather excitedly on the intercom, and asked me if I could see any object in the sky about 15 miles southwest of the base. Using a pair of powerful binoculars I carefully scanned the sky in that direction and assured him that I could see nothing. It was then that he told me why he was so concerned.

"For several minutes he had tracked an object on his radar scope, then all of a sudden it had stopped at a range of about 15 miles from the base and remained stationary. Being an experienced radar operator, he knew that whatever it was, it was of good size, at least as big as any of our larger transport planes. But what amazed him was the fact that it stopped and remained motionless on the scope. A full half hour passed and still this object remained in the same location on the radar screen. Remembering that I had an inbound C-124 Globemaster coming in from that direction, I thought that perhaps the pilot would see something out there that we couldn't. I gave the pilot a couple of calls and finally raised him just south of_______on his way in. I told him what we had on radar and asked him if he would mind swinging off his course slightly so that he could take a look for us.

"I then turned him over to the radar operator who had picked up the inbound aircraft on radar and he guided the pilot to a new heading that would bring him directly into this blip that was still stationary on the screen. The pilot slowed his aircraft and he and his copilot and engineer started looking about them. I could hear the radar man giving the pilot directions on a monitoring speaker in the tower.

"The aircraft got onto a line on the radar screen that would intersect the blip that was unidentified; then as the minutes went by the aircraft slowly approached the object on the scope. Both blips were equally bright and distinct. Then when it seemed that the two would collide, at about a half mile separation on the scope, the stationary object simply disappeared, vanished seconds before the big Globemaster reached its location.

"None of the crew on the plane had seen anything at any time, although they were all observing closely at the time and were told how close they were getting all the way to the object.

"How anything could vanish so suddenly from a radar screen without even leaving a trace of what direction it went is really amazing. When you bear in mind that a radar scanner usually has a sweep of better than 50 miles, that would mean that whatever the object was it went from a dead standstill at 15 miles and disappeared from the scope covering over 35 miles in a split second. Remember also that this object was there for over a half hour and did not disappear until seconds before the aircraft reached its position: certainly this couldn't be any electrical disturbance or other phenomena. Why then would it disappear precisely when it did?"

Summer 1953; Yaak, Montana

Unidentified objects were tracked at an Air Force radar site several times. S/Sgt. William Kelly described the incidents in a taped interview with Olean, N. Y., newsman Bob Barry.

On one occasion Sgt. Kelly and other radarmen picked up six unidentified targets. In five sweeps of the antenna (about 1 minute), the UFOs changed direction 5 times, sometimes making 90 degree turns. When radar indicated the UFOs had approached within 10 miles of the station, the crew went outside to look for them. They saw six objects in trail formation, switching to in line abreast, then stack formation. Other radar stations were notified and they also tracked the UFOs.

The radar crew calculated the objects' speed: 1400-1600 mph. (In 1953 the official world speed record for aircraft was 755.14 mph.; see table).

At other times, the station tracked UFOs making similar maneuvers. Sgt. Kelly had also tracked UFOs climbing vertically out of the radar beam, with height finder equipment confirming the rise, until the objects went off the scope.

July 3, 1954; Albuquerque, N.M.

Nine greenish spherical UFOs which invaded a restricted flying area were detected by Air Defense Command radar and sighted visually. The Albuquerque radar station's message on the sighting was accidentally intercepted at Chicago Midway Airport by an airline operations employee:

0105-C. . . NINE UNIDENTIFIED SPHERICAL OBJECTS

GIVING OFF GREEN LIGHT REPORTED 20 MILES NORTH

ABQ [Albuquerque] FIELD AT 24,000 FEET. OBJECTS

HOVERED MOTIONLESS FOR 6 MINUTES THEN PROCEEDED 340 DEGREES AT APPROX 2600 MPH. ALTITUDE AND SPEED BY TRIANGULATION. . . ABQ ADIZ RADAR.

(NICAP Note: "ADIZ" means Air Defense Identification Zone; only aircraft which have filed a flight plan are allowed to fly through an ADIZ area.)

March 23, 1957; Los Angeles, Calif.

Confidential report obtained from CAA (now FAA) radar operator confirming visual sightings at Oxnard AFB and vicinity. Report certified by NICAP Board Members: Rev. Albert Baller; Dr. Earl Douglass; Mr. Frank Edwards; Col. Robert B. Emerson, USAR; Prof. Charles A. Maney; Rear Admiral H. B. Knowles,
USN (Ret.).

At 9:55 p.m., Mr. K. E. Jefferson, Pasadena, saw a brilliant flashing object moving over Downey. Between that time and midnight, police switchboards throughout the Los Angeles area were flooded with hundreds of calls reporting a UFO. The reports poured into the Pasadena Filter Center.

According to Capt. Joseph Fry, commanding officer of the Center, the first official report came in at 11:10 p.m., at which time Capt. Fry notified Air Defense radar.

''Between 2310 (11:10 p.m.) and 2350," Capt. Fry said in a statement to newsman Russ Leadabrand, "we had many reports. We had reports that indicated the UFO was orange-red, flashing a bright white light. Some of the callers claimed they heard the 'sound of reports' when the light flashed from the object."

At the Filter Center itself, Air Force T/Sgt. Dewey Crow and newsman Les Wagner watched the UFO maneuver slowly around the area for over an hour. Just after midnight, Mrs. Robert Beaudoin, wife of an Oxnard AFB Captain, telephoned the base tower to report sighting the UFO. It was described as a large silent object, flashing a brilliant red light, and maneuvering above the Santa Rosa Valley

An F-89 interceptor attempted to locate the object, but the Air Force denied it was able to make contact, although at the same time witnesses on the ground could see the UFO plainly near one of the Oxnard runways.

Reports continued into early morning hours, with witnesses in various locations describing objects which sometimes hovered, and sometimes moved swiftly.

The CAA radar report, obtained later, virtually proved that unexplained objects were operating over Los Angeles. The radar operator's report:

"At 2350 (11:50 p.m.) I was watching the radar scope, when I noticed a target about 15 miles northwest and moving northwest. At first I thought it was a jet, then I noticed it was moving much faster than anything I had ever seen on the scope. About 40 miles northwest it came to an abrupt stop and

reversed course, all within a period of about three seconds. It then traveled back along its course for about 20 miles, reversed course again and disappeared off the scope at 50 miles (our radar reaches out only 50 miles).

''Approximately 5 minutes later 2 more targets appeared and disappeared off the scope in the same direction as the first; and these we had time to clock. They traveled 20 miles in 30 seconds which figures out to 3600 mph. A minute or so later a fourth target appeared in the same area as the other 3, 10 or 15 miles northwest, and went off the scope to the northwest at 3600 mph.

'Our radar does not give height of aircraft so I couldn't give you the height, however they had to be about 10,000 feet or lower because our radar's maximum height range is about 10,000 feet."

November 5, 1957; Gulf of Mexico

Just after 5:00 a.m. the U S. Coast Guard Cutter Sebago was about 200 miles south of the Mississippi delta. At 5:10 the bridge radar suddenly showed an unidentified target at 246 degrees true, moving N to S, range 12,000 yards (almost 7 miles). On duty were Ensign Wayne Schotley, deck officer, Lt. (j.g.) Donald Schaefer, first class quartermaster Kenneth Smith, and radioman Thomas Kirk.

Interviewed in New Orleans, Ensign Schotley was asked how good the radar target was.

Schotley: "The ship's combat information center confirmed the sighting. At that point it was reported falling astern rapidly. It was a good pip target.. It was a very strong contact, considered good."

Cmdr. James N. Schrader, spokesman in New Orleans, said that at one point "in two minutes it went 33 miles straight away from the ship." (About 1020 mph.)

At 5:14 contact was lost.

At 5:16 contact was regained, object about 22 miles north.

At 5:18 object faded off radar screen, range about 55 miles.

At 5:20 contact regained, object appeared stationary, seven miles due north.

About this time, A/1C William J. Mey, an Electronics technician at Keesler AFB, Mississippi (about 320 miles to the north on the Gulf Coast) spotted an elliptical UFO. In his signed report to NICAP, A/1C Mey gives the time as approximately 5:20 a.m. Looking south, he saw the UFO approach on a northerly course at about the speed of a propeller airliner, then accelerate rapidly and disappear into some clouds.

This suggests that more than one UFO may have been operating in the area,,. and that the Sebago's radar may have tracked more than one of them. A/1C Mey's report is fairly consistent with the 5:18 radar report of the UFO headed north at over 1000 mph. If Mey actually saw the UFO at 5:28, it would have averaged about 1590 mph., from the time it faded from the Sebago's radar screen. If he saw it precisely at 5:20 a.m., it would have had to accelerate to nearly 8000 mph. to cover the distance in that time).

At 5:21 the Sebago regained radar contact, and also saw the UFO visually for 3-5 seconds as a brilliant white object with no distinguishable shape. It was at a bearing of 270 degrees true (west), elevation about 31 degrees, moving horizontally from south to north. (A navigator obtained the elevation by noting a star at the same angle and taking a sextant reading of it). The UFO finally entered a cloudbank and disappeared.

At 5:37 the cutter reported its last radar contact with the object, about 175 miles to the north, traveling about 660 mph.

[See Section XII, November 1957 chronology, for other reports during the same period.]

January 1961; Missile Base

Confidential report certified by NICAP Director Donald E. Keyhoe and Assistant Director Richard Hall. During the test of a solid fuel missile, radar which was supposed to track the first stage instead tracked a UFO target. Test evaluation report in NICAP possession states "object unidentifiable." The UFO "appeared to be alternately hovering, then moving rapidly to a new location."

7. Ruppelt, Edward J., Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. (Doubleday, 1956), p.68.
8. Keyhoe, Donald F., Flying Saucers From Outer Space. (Henry Holt, 1053), p. 33. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
9. Ibid., p.34. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
10. Ruppelt, op. cit., p.68
11. Life, April 7, 1952.
12. Ruppelt, op. cit., p.103., True, August 1950
13. Keyhoe, op. cit., p.48., (From USAF Intelligence Report)
14. Ibid., p.48. (From USAF Intelligence Report)
15. Ruppelt, op. cit., p.135.
16. Ibid., p.167.
17. Ibid., p.100.
18. Keyhoe, op. cit., p. 52. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
19. Ruppelt, op. cit., p.201.
20. Time, August 11, 1052.
21. International News Service, Atlanta; July 24, 1952.
22. Keyhoe, op. cit., p. 97 (From USAF Intelligence Report).
23. Ruppelt, op. cit., p.222.
24. Keyhoe, op. cit., p. 98. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
25. Ibid., ppg;  105-106. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
26. Ibid., p.107. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
27. Ibid., p.120. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
28. Ibid., p.95; Ruppelt, op. cit., p.247.
29. Ibid., p.96. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
30. Ibid., p.258. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
31. Ibid., p.161. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
32. Ruppelt, op. cit., p.65.
33. Keyhoe, op. cit., p. 149. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
34. Ibid., p.189-191. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
35. True; May 1954
36. Ruppelt, op. cit., p.295.
37. Keyhoe, op. cit., p. 257. (From USAF Intelligence Report).
38. Ibid., p.257. (From USAF Intelligence Report)
39. Michel, Aime,  The Truth About Flying Saucers. (Criterion, 1956), p. 123
40. Ruppelt, op cit., p. 303 (Other data on file at NICAP).
41. Keyhoe, Donald F., Flying Saucer Conspiracy. (Henry Holt, 1955), p.79.
42. Ibid., p.13.
43. Ibid., p.144.
44. United Press; June 30, 1954.
45. Report obtained by Leonard H. Stringfield, Cincinnati, Ohio (See Section VII).
46. Keyhoe, op. cit., p.25.
47. Associated Press; September 18, 1954.
48. Louisville Courier-Journal; November 13, 1954
49. Auckland Star; December 10, 1954.
50. Associated Press, Paris; February 19, 1956.
51. United Press; July 19, 1956.
52. Altus (Okla.) Times-Democrat; September 11, 1956.
53. APRO Bulletin; November 1956.
54. CRIFO Orbit; January 4, 1957. The Clipper, Pan American Airways; January 1057. Miami Daily News; November 8, 1956.
55. CRIFO Orbit; January 4, 1957. Pierre Daily Capitol Journal, November 26,1956.
56. Associated Press, United Press, London; April 6, 1957.
57. Unresolved discrepancy in dates. Flying Saucer Review  (London), Jan.-Feb., 1958 gives October 21. APRO Bulletin, November 1957, gives October 29.
58. APRO Bulletin, January 1958.
59. Signed report on file at NICAP.
60. Signed report on file at NICAP. Visual sighting inferred from report.
61. Japan Times; July 28, 1958.
62. Confidential report obtained and certified by Calgary, Alberta, NICAP Subcommittee.
63. New York Times; January 25, 1050.
64. Confidential report certified by NICAP Director and Assistant Director. Contains all tracking data (unclassified at source).
65. Reuters; June 10, 1961. Edinburgh Evening Dispatch; June 10,1961.
66. Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, Radars and Flying Saucers. 2 July 1962.
67. Borden, R. C. & Vickers, T. K., Technical Development Report No. 180; A Preliminary Study of Unidentified Targets Observed On Air Traffic Control Radars. (Civil Aeronautics Administration Technical Development and Evaluation Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, September 1952).
68. U. S. Air Force, Radar Storm Detection. (Washington, D.C., 6 August 1945).
69. Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, Report 63-434, 1963.

86