Congressional, White House, UFO-related Constituent Correspondence, 1998

1320 .4 Aeronautics:UFO Headquarters Action Tracking System (HATS) INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE ACTION ID Number: L11998-00407 . (b) (6) Title: WARD/Sen Snowe fwds ltr from U.F.O. and the recent Mars photo who's interested in Recipient: UHeffernan Author: Organization: SNOWE SENATE Date Written: Date Received: Date Concurred: 05/18/1998 05/26/1998 Action Office: Status: UWard:S Closed Date Submitted: Date Signed: Date Closed: >>Current Due Date: Original Due Date: 06/24/1998 06/24/1998 06/18/1998<< Signature Office: UHeffernan Info offices: UHeffernan, UHeninger, L/Kerwin Abstract: SEN SNOWE FWDS LTR FROM (b) (6) OF STOCKINGTON, MAINE, WHO'S INTE:RESTED IN U.FO.'S AND THE RECENT PHOTOS OF MARS WHICH WERE RECENTLY RELEASED. Comments: Enclosures: NO Related Records: Keywords: (b) (5) MAINE U.F.O. MARS File Plan: 1320.4 Analyst: BMoore 06/24/1998 Page 1 of 1 Headquarters Action Tracking System (HATS) INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE ACTION ID Number: L/1998-00729 Title: Rothman/UFO_Sightings by Astronauts Recipient: UHeffernan Author: Grassley Organization: Senate Date Written: 08/03/1998 Date Received: 08/31/1998 Date Concurred: Date Submitted: Date Signed: 09/04/1998 Date Closed: 09/10/1998 Action Office: LD/Rothman:P >>Current Due Date: 08/22/1998<< Original Due Date: 08/22/1998 Status: Closed Signature Office: UHeffernan Info Offices: UHeffernan, UHeninger, UKerwin Abstract: Senator Grassley forwards letter from (ts) (S) who is requesting information on UFO sightings by Astronauts. -­ Comments: Enclosures: letter Related Records: Keywords: (6J (o) UFO,astronauts,sightings File Plan: 1320.4 Analyst: JMassey 09/10/1998 Page 1 of 1 --- yeAtoGU SEP - 4 1998 L:HR:mtg:L/1998-729f The Honorable Charles E. Grassley United States Senate Washington, DC 2051 0 Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you for your letter of August 3, 1998, on behalf of(b <5) who is requesting information about the possible sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (U FOs) by NASA astronauts. Over the years there have been many objects sighted by the astronauts during space missions. Most of these items were later identified by photographs or NORAD records as material from launch vehicles or spacecraft or were such items as water droplets. No unidentified materials were seen on missions to the moon. The Air Force, in the interest of national security, received and investigated all reports for many years but has discontinued this activity. NASA has no program for investigating UFOs and has not withheld information on sightings. In 1976, James Oberg thoroughly researched the UFO/astronaut allegations and published an article about it in SEARCH magazine. We are enclosing that article for (b) (6) )nformation. In addition, enclosed is a NASA Fact Sheet which summarizes the current status of NASA's involvement in UFO investigations. We trust this information will aid you in responding to(b) 6) inquiry. Sincerely, Edward Heffernan Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs Enclosures + bee: Z/Roger Launius (with incoming) ; provided info Sent to Sherry Kuntz in the Hill office S,ncc tho ··auron.iut UFO" genre is one of rhe m13in pillolrs o f VFO ovidcr1ce. thi5 study clafmlng !hat the entire set of C .)Scs i1 inv.,..lid W 1if 0U 1110U 5iy CC fCCl.?1"18<J t..Vlth 15eeptic. ism and cri ticism from UFO buffs. Aation~I objections and arguments wiH bo printed and answered in a subseQuent is'5ue of this magazina. Critics are urged to raise specific points not address°'d in tho study. or to cite and docum.ant facts which might modify or invalidate conclusions in the study. James E. Oberg Associate Editor "Space World" magazine Story! SGM{q~ f'\~9 ~\?-j ,1{ WiNT~R 1<;46 ( 1H~~ ij,J?_'lJ P/\LM~ fvBL\CA'11ou s f\l''\1-\~ f\<;T.) l-Ji ~c... S~Y OG Su\1\e C.1.1f7 pr:c~ ._f1,25' Space flight has opened many mysteries. True, scie11tists prefer to list tlie puzzles solved and u11knoums discovered, but as men venture beyond the earth it is inevitable that new mysteries will be encountered. Somewhere out there, many obsen:ers believe, are intelligent species with technological civilizations · far more advanced tha,z that of Earth. Perhaps they are sending us radio signals we have not recognized. Perhaps they have left artifacts ofpast visits for us to find. Perhaps they are even_ now keeping the earth under surveillance. If they are out there, someday we will meet them. As illustrated in science fiction, this meeting will probably occur in space. Have such meetings already occurred? Have astronauts and cosmonauts already seen alien spacecraft? The UFO lite!ature is full of tales of "space UFOs". Are any ofthem valid? What can a careful study reveal? H ardly a UFO book or movie is complete without the standard assertion that "astronauts have seen UFOs too". While critics may attack the character or intelligence of many UFO witnesses, they cannot use these tactics on American and Russian space pilots. Where UFO photographs can be accused of distortion and forgery, photographs taken by astronauts and processed by NASA must be of the highest trustworthiness. Hence, most UFO scholars consider the family of astronaut UFO sightings to be one of the strongest bodi~s of evidence in the past thirty years. The best of these cases include astronaut James McOivitt's sighting of o( an "unidentified spacecraft" near his Gemini-4 space capsule in 1965, a curious photo of a pair of UFOs with glowing propulsion fields taken by the Gemini-7 astronauts. reports of nearby objects from X-15 and Mercury spacecraft. tales of how ~he 1968-1969 Apollo moon shots were followed by U.FOs on their way to the moon, and reports and pbutographs of objects seen by crewmen on the Skylab space station. Last year, the National Inves­ tigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) selected the "McDivitt UFO" photo as one of the four best photographs ever taken. The "astronaut UFO" sightings must appeal to many seriou:i researchers for a number of reasons. The witnesses and the photographs are unimpeachable as to honesty and authenticity. The conditions of the space missions can be calculated and recorded, and every object near the spacecraft can be determined by con­ sulting the giant space radars of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), headquartered inside Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. Extensive crew debriefings and on-board tape recorder transcripts may be available to obtain direct eye­ witness testimony. With all these facts and assumptions in mind, and mindful of the numerous 'unsolved' cases which might tell much about the lJFO phenomenon, I began a special research program into this particular body of evidence. As an aerospace writer. historian, and re­ searcher, I felt that my experience with astronautics, computers, Air Force operations, and space miss:ons might give me new insights into this most puzzling series of cases. I was not disappointed, and my results were startling. The basic truths behind these sightings seems lately to have gathered an accretion of exaggeration, confusion, and outright fiction. The 1968 "Condon Report" on UFOs (conducted by the University of Colorado for the U.S. Air Force) found itself unable to penetrate three specific cases, which the analyst felt were • a "challenge" to any serious investigator. Stories later began circulating about sightings of lunar surface lights and structures, and the discovery of artifacts on the moon, about near approaches of structured objects, and about attempts at radio contact between Apollo capsules and UFOs. Recent books on UFOs give lists of astronaut sightings which are out of numeric sequence, misdated, mispeUed, and otherwise distorted. My research has revealed a few examples of deliberate photo forgeries by UFO buffs or opportunistic authors. My investigations in the NASA 38 ~ -·-·- ·-·----- - - -- ----- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ·- -·- -· - " - · - - - - - - -- - arch,n•s has fl'\"l•aled ca..~es whcrl' UFO rt•~c:irchrr; withheld Cl•rtain informa­ tion frl'cly gi,·1•n them by N:\SA officials. infori:tation which would have clearly explained m;my cases which the authors wantt•d to appear mysterious. So the time has come to take a ne\\' look at this whote phenomenon. What is the truth about "astronaut lirOs"? The first step in any research might be with the Condon report. t:-iought by many to have been commissioned as a "whitewash" of the UFO phenomenon. UFO enthusiasts are accustomed to hearing harsh criticism of almost all aspects of this study. but my own objections to the "astronaut UFO" section is from a novel angle. My own research suggests that the Condon investigator, far from being the best man for the job, was clearly unqualified to evaluate the difficult cases. He was not familiar with the terminology of space flight or the basics of orbital flight trajectories, as I am. As a result, he ignored possible explanations while incorrecUy eliminating other possible answers. In other words, far from being a coverup, this chapter of the Condon report is superficial. It is entirely worthless as an endorsement of the unexplained and unexplainable nature of several astronaut sightings which I will discuss. I can prove this remark­ able assertion to any investigator serious enough to consider all the evidence, much of which has never before been published. The Condon report does give some details about the environment of astronaut sightings, but even here does not go far enough. More stress needs to be put on the visual and photo­ graphic limitations of space flight: the windows are far smaller than popularly realized (about half the size of this open magazine at arm's length), and for many years were subject to obscuration and smudging by seepage o( sealant and by contamination by rocket fuel. At various p_oints in the flight, the spacecraft was surrounded by clouds of d~bris (leaking fuel, dumped water, chipping paint, fraying insulation, ejected equipment. and more). while the inside of the weight• less cabin was usually plagued with floating particles of dust and debris which often passed in front of camt!ras pointing out windows. Other satellites should have been visible, since few people realize that on any clear night ·-•-- • ~ - -+s _ _ ,., - ,e-- ....... ,., ,+- ............ ,., _ all for ,., • .., .... ...... -«• Dc:sµitc the pt!r.~istl'11t rumo rs of '.,;ccrct space pict'"rcs •. pho /nJ!rupl1s tahl'll by .V,\S.-\ i11 space arc i11 tlie public domui11. That is. any p icture tuhc:,: by 1.111 astro11a111 or 011 earth resource, satellite is ai:ailablr. to anyo11c who wants to pay fur i t. There are foi:r tiers of plwto,;:-:iph Ji·cilcbility. but two a:-e rescri:ed for 11ewsme11 only The ~/ructurc is us folluws: A . The most popular space photographs /alien arc lithographed for general free di.,;tributiCJ11 to anyone who asr.s for them. Seueral dozen new photographs are added to this list eucry year. Cost to .VAS,\ is a few ce11ts per print. 8 . The N.-lS.-l Public Information Offices at uarious centers and at headquarters prints gfossy photographs of timely news stories distribution tu the news media. Hundreds of these photographs are released euery year. but only crrtified newsmen can receiue them for ~~ . C. .\!any thousands of other photographs and drawi11gs may be of interest to the news media and arc therefore fifad at public i11formatio11 offices. but stock copies are not kept. Each request must be filled by actual photo lab orders. which co:;ts NASA about one dollar per photograph. D. A,1y citizen who wants copies of any photograph listed in 'B' or 'C' aboue con get it, but it is entirely reasonable for NASA to expect him to pay for it. News bureau photographs. along with all other (light photography-stills and mouies-can be ordered from Bara Studios, P.O. Box 486, Bladensburg, MD 20710. The cost ofany photograph ordered by stock number is seueral dollars apiece. A ny cross-referencing or researching will also cost money. . • Some ground photographs of astronaut accidents, au topsies, and medical examinations are not releasable for publication. On seueral Gemini {lights, special photographic experiments were undertaken for the DoD, but these inuolued special cameras and exclusiuely ear th surface targe{s. In neither case would it be possible to withhold any hypothetical UFO photographs from the public. Astronaut photographs are indexed by a code which specifies year taken and frame number. S66-12387, for example, would be a NASA photo (not necessarily a space photo) taken in 1966. Beginning wi th Apollo, space photos were also indexed w ith a mission code, roll number and frame number (neither of which were repeated on later {lights). For example, ASJ6·108-13005 u•as taken on the Apollo-16 {light, with the 108th roll of the Apollo project (liglit film. Mouie film is indexed per magazine with similar numbers. Euery photograph euer taken by American astronauts for N ASA is on file w ith Bara Studios and can be obtained by anyone wifling to pay for them. Writers who produce 'secret NASA UFO photographs' which they claim are being hidden from the American public are doing a gross disseruice to one of the most open and cooperatiue public information offices of any federal agency. an o bserver on Earth can see a number of orbiting objects with only half an effort. Out or this "backg?ound noise", can we separate the "signal" which will indicate the existence of UFOs? These problems all are of interest to space officials, and numerous studies have been made. Fragments might imply a structural failure (a rescue ship was almost sent to Skylab-3 because of the crew's observation of leaking fuel droplets). Debris inside t!1e cabin can irritate eyes and damage the electronic gear behind the instrument panels. Other satellites might be dangerous due to the potential of collision or they might be of intelligence interest if they are frcm somt! other nation. Therefore, any mysterious space sighting might as easily be vital for 39 ♦--­ NASA to know about as it might be a true UFO: Careful investigations are called for. What are some of the most famous cases, and what are the facts? Interpre­ tations may differ, but productive thinking can only be done when all the information is at hand. Some o( It is hard to find or understand; other information, available to some researchers, may have been deliberate­ ly withheld. ·some classical cases may consist of made-up fantasies. You can soon judge for yourself. Has there been any attempt to "cover up" space sightings (a common plea when no t!Vidence is available, even in this age of sieve-like government secrecy)? Are astronauts "muzzled" about UFOs? Has fifteen -■---­ ,,..~ 1.~~-·••·---.'",....:"-r-•':·""'" ,. f ' I i ! t1-~f ' .~ • ~ . ...: • · ~'{~,;t't( ✓"~•'·-:..,........,:-.,:-,::,"?\~-."':,~~""t".:~..-~~,.-,r-•r·,r•..,-~~•·,~-•l"""'-..,.,, .: ;,_<..-:::~~-' . ~~ The "McOivitt UFO", prize-winning astronaut photograph taken on Gemini-4. Actually, McOivitt_axplained later after tho flight that the sun was coming across the window as the_ spacecraft rolled, the sun rays struck a metal bolt, causing the'Cilares in the camera lens''. NASA photo 65-H-1013. years of manned spaceflight uncovered any evidence at all which even remotely suggests that Earth is being visited and observed by advanced spacesliips from another world? Let's look at the evidence. On June 3, 1965, rookie astronauts Jim McDivitt and Ed White blasted of( from Cape Kennedy (now again Cape Canaveral), squeezed into their Gemini-4 capsule. The two youngest• ever. American spacemen were to spend four days in orbit, tripling the previous US record. They would be the first American space crewmen to have time to sightsee in space, once major experiments like a booster rendezvous and a walk in space were completed. Approximately thirty hours into the flight ( while White was asleep) , McDivitt reported that he had seen an object in space near his space capsule. It appeared to be cylindrical with ·'an arm sticking out", possibly on a collision course. Interested N AS.-\ officials in Houston asked NORAD which other space satellites were near Cemini--1 at the time of the sighting, and NORAD came up with a list of about a dozen objects. All of them were pieces of tiny debris or small scicntit"ic satellites except one: the giant, " winged" meteor satC'llitc, Pegasus-2. It seemed to iit the descrip­ tion radioed down by McDivitt, so NASA announced that the object had been identified. But Pegasus had been more than a thousand miles away, and McDivitt clearly saw an object much closer, much more detailed, and in an orbit very close to his own ("Collision course" to a pilot means that the relative angle of sight is unchanging, which would not be the case for any satellite crossing McDivitt's orbit). The object became a UFO when nobody could identify it. It has remained a UFO up until today, but not any longer. McDivitt's hasty attempt to take a photograph of the object thrqugh his smeared window was apparently fruit• less, since the object's motion combined with the slow stabilization spin of the spaceship carried it into the glare of the sun after about 30 seconds. The astronaut later recounted how he went through all the films of the flight (every roll of film is accounted for on a flight manifest, so they do not disappear) and found many over­ exposed or blank. This mission had been the first night in which space photography was a major experiment, and the glaring sunlight of space had invalidated many pre-flight exposure settings. :\lcDivitt did not find any­ • thing which looked like ""his UFO". What was it he ,aw? Why has it become such a prominl•nt UFO case? And if the pictures did not turn out, where did NICAP get its "top four" photograph (which shows, not a winged cylinder, but a smeared blob)? We can answer these questions at last. The first hint as to the true identity of this space UFO can be found in McDivitt's own words, given at a press conference a week after the flight when his memory was fresh: "It looked a lot like an upper staie of a booster". Gemini does have a booster just like it, and McDivitt had been carrying out maneuvers near it early in the flight. Why didn't the -list from NORAD include the Gemini-4 booster rocket? NORAD had been tracking the objects, but NASA had not asked about Gemini-4 and its own associated debris- it had asked about Gemini--! and any other earlier satellites. Anyone familiar with computerized information systems (one of my professional specialities) can guess what happened: the computer was given a "query" which told it to compare Gemini--t with the other satellites. The computer never knew where the Gemini booster was relati\•e to the spacecraft, since it had not been asked. :\lcDivitt had been visually tracking the thirty foot long cylind1r at a range of only 75 miles a few hours earlier, but this large satellite never made the "NORAD list" because 40 Arti1t', ronrlition o t thu ,ntron,,u1s· t> --.,.-~r..-~•r·~ ~ .-:---•' ... •• •"t'"':•~·r-n-·'"-] l • . . . . vlow o f 1ho rondo.r0 0 u <J ovatv a:ion pod after it hai boon jotti1oncd from the Gemini adaptor ioct iun. Gorn,ni r;,dar locked o n to evaluation pod. Scott Carpenter took this photo of a subsatellit e balloon jettisoned by h is ( . ' ' . i . . , • • .. -· .. .., . . cJ . • : ., .....--..:- _,..Js...:'11, . :.l• • ' ...-"... t· --.,-.. . ', ' ·,· ... ., .­ £' . . ance and even make it look like two objects. The potato-shaped grey b lob is the pod's insulation blanket. T h i• sequence of p ictures illustrate• the problem o f Identifying photographs of objects in tho glare o f space. 41 ~--' ·-·. -•-,,-- • C ~ - ~=- ,.....,--.,•·-•~----.··.•-c-,,.--~··o,•:·,1 .... .. .. .-J --.1 . -~1 . ! I •' ;.· ; ~1• ' . . .,- + ' •.. ..,., ~ . . .;, 1 · 1 ......- ~:· 1•;) .i. . ...'-I .,. t r t·· nobody thought to ask about it! The list was incomplete! What we do know from the complete Gemini-4 transcripts (including the on-board tape recorder as well as space-to-ground links), is that the UFO appeared at the same point in the Gemini orbit where the booster had been rept-3tedly spotted earlier in the flight. '.\fcDi\•itt had once described seeing his booster with straps h~nglng from it. Furthermore, on at least one occasion on the first day, McDivitt had at first been unable to recognize the booster when he ·saw il because it was close to the glare of· the sun! Thi5 had been :it a range of less than ten miles. Yet another iniport:int factor unknown to t!1e Cr1nciL•11 report w:i, that '.\leDivin •.•::t.; C\J1:1p!:iini:1i;: ro thl-'· ni~ht surgt:on abou 1. his t'Yl'$ight duri1\g this pho~c of th:) tli~ht. Hi:; eyes were red and teary due to a reaction with the cabin atmosphere and an accidental massive urine spill. "I didn't think I was going to be able t~ hack it", McDivitt later had radioed to Earth. This famous UFO case now becomes that of a pilot with watering eves catching sight of an object in p~rallel orbft, an object which he had already misidentified a few hours earlier. As to the photograph, an inves• tigator must go through all the film of the night to realize how common such . blobs- of light (o\·ere.'<posures, r~tlccti0m. glare. etc. ) ll'erc. Both NAS.-l. and ;\lc:Di\·itt han• agrel.'d that tl-ie sc,qucnCI.' ot' mo\·ie irames are a ,iew out t!u: winc.uw. showit\~ sunlii::ht r~tl~·cti11~ off a br\t. a~ain:;~ the dirty window ~la~s. '.~!C..\F' thinks dii'forently b,:c:tu~e <)t t!ll' b:!tk of its cop,· of th<! ph,Ho is a handwritten -. . ,. ·...~.. note (nobody known by whom) stating that McDivitt {nobody• knows when) had communicated .{nobody knows how) the fact that the picture showed "his UFO". (This was made clear by a telephone conversation between the author and Jack Acuff of NICAP on March 5, 1976). Why has this case achie\'ed such notoriety'? It probably resulted from the enthusiasm of UFO believers. the naive openness of NASA public relations officials, and the publicity­ seeking opportunism of some of the principals. \lcDivitt himself did little to clear the case up. instead using it as a ticket onto natil•nal TV talk shows and news interviews (especially after his rr.tirement in 19~. To add to the mystPry. th~ former spaceman assl'rts. "I have never bcrn ablt- to it.:entify it, and I don't think anyone ever will." 42 . ·--:a:.::-.; On a recent "UFO rncorcli:ig'' rrll-asrd by Columbia, calt.:d "UFOs: The Credibility Factor", :VlcDi\·itt clrarly shows how his mcmorirs have ch:u1ged or bc,m cl1a11g(•d to enhance the mystery ot' hi3 C'Xpcricnce: "They (NAS.-\) chcck,'d :'iOR..\D...to sec what they had up on radar ancf there w:isn't anything within very close range of us." Readers can measure the credibility of this statcm~nt against . the facts. If McOivitt was fooled by his own booster ten years ago, is it too much to expect him to admit it now? What would that do to all of his public assertions of mystery? There is an easier way out, and i'vlcOivitt took it when I sent him an advance copy of my manuscript. After keeping it two months, he wrote back, "[ was not able to read it very thoroughly and I cannot offer any ext~nsive comments. I do not foresee the opportunity for me to provide any further re~w." There weren't any errors in my analysis, he implied, but it woulc! be better kept quiet. NASA never had any real doubts. "We believe it to be a rocket tank or spent second stage of a rocket," wrote a high space official on July 1, 1965. NORAD officials, confronted with my scenario, endorsed it: "Your comments on the NORAD role related to the case appear to pe logical," wrote NORAD Public Information Officer D.W. Kindschi on Feo. 23, 1976. So the "~lcDivitt case" is closed. The best space UFO case has now been identified. Do not expect to see any change in the UFO press, however. Such results are simply ignored. Photographs made in space show negative effects, such as the "McDivitt UFO" aura, often. Spacecraft ·and astronauts may be engulfed in a strange aura caused by overexposure to sunlight brighter than ever seen on Earth. Blowups of photographs of known space objects show them appearing as "blobs" due to the enlargement process and to the· courseness of the grain. Ordinary space pictures are full of clouds of debris, constellations of man-made starlike points fluttering through space. The Condon report was fascinated with the ~lcOi\·itt cas<', and fe\\· UFO enthusiasts have not heard of it. But n,:itlwr the Condon r£>st)archers nor the average reader had ever had all the facts. Now people can m:ike up their own minds. I havl' ''" d,iub~ th;,t ~lcl)i\"itl w:i~ ~<!l'i:1g his ow11 Til.::n tJCJostrr stage. Or. Roach wa~ also fasd n:•l•~cl wi t!t another :,.1coi,itt si~foiti'.11}, that uf a point of light ::rc:,i:::·::; the ; k·: . The object soundr.,j j•.1.,l Iii-:<> th•! appearance of an artifici.!l earth satellite, and that is e~:actly wh:it \kDivitt thought it \•:.:s. There is no information to suggest it w.:_s anything else. Another Condon favorite is a Gemini-7 case. The report of sightings of a cloud of debris right at the moment of boostt•r separation (these particles included frozen fuel droplets, the booster itself. assorted insulation and structural fragments from where the explosive bolts were fired, and other smaller objects never identified and never cared about) is not very impressive. The crew, on their first space mission, saw a few pieces they had nol expected (the pilot guessed­ wrongly-that they "were in polar orbit"). Only a partisan digging for evidence, and desperate to find such evidence, would make much of this common event. But a sign of desperation is indeed . ....·. .·.;~~.: ~~ .\1":,:;: 'f~~v·~•.~~-...,:.. ~·. - · • ·• ,) : :.: ····-. . ... ... ... . - .....-. ... . h /V◄ i , •• • • ••••• g ,Cla:: t ,an ,.. ,,, round in 1'1)1111:•ction l'.'isli Lill! t,;~mi!! i· I GFO ca~t'. It is not th~ clc::1wra•.i1a~ 0f gtn·criun•_•nl oflici, I:; t~yi11!{ to c:ur••r up t.he truth ahoul GfU:;. R;,hrr, it :s thr dl'spernlion of some outsider tryi:1~ t rJ m:t~:;f:-,.-:-tu:c1 couni .~rf,.i, "astrnnaut L:FO" <?videnc~. Jn acli·. ;r.\· which should not be nc>ce:s;a,y if th~ " rt'al" L: FO evidence w~rC' as persuasive as many thint. It involves :i photograph showing two very strange glowing ocjects. Each is he:,agonal in shape, ~·:ew!c'd at an angle, ~nd supported by ;;. dazzling "force field" below it. A cloud­ covered earth is se.?n in the background. s~~ p\cd~ ~1 ~ :l.8 This photograph has appeared in books, magazines, newspapers, and pamphlets. It is part of the travellina slide show of UFO lectur~rs from th; Mutual UFO Network (i\!VFON) and elsewhere. I have heard it described as •\showing a typical UFO force field propulsion system", and "similar to other UFO photograph taken on Earth the same year". The photograph is a forgery. It is a hoax. What the anonymous counter­ feiter did (I have reason to suspect a 43 ·--·:® J The outhor .>nd NASA photo an.:ilvn Richard l Undorwood show "•p~ce UFO" photos to Or. J. Allun Hynok, dirolctor o f the center for UFO n udios. July. 1976. t l vn4k -subsuquPn';'fy ,.,.,_ dorscd Ob0rLJ'S conclusions. Saturn booner S-IV-b and four open "SL.A" panels. On moon flights tho four "petals.'.' fly free and, together with the empty boo:<t­ •r. tum.ble through spaca a faw miles from the Apollo capsule. They were often seon as ·bright flashing lighn as they reflected tho powerful sunlight . On Apollo-1 2 , astronau t desc riptions of theH fra;imonts wore m i s­ Interpreted by UFO buffs and metamorph­ ized Into alien spacecraft. ® "Mysterious" bulls aye object wen and photographed by Gam­ lnl-6 astronauts I n December, 1965. Unfortunately for flying 1aucer buff~, It Is not• UFO; it Is an out of focus photo of the approaching Gemlnl-7 spaceship, noH on. NASA photo S 0 65-65296. . . ·,·-··· ~.... ... - :~­ . ,,,_. ''--:· .. 44 ~ : ~......1n~,~r..c.•~1:-~-~t~ t-.\~ :-·.-..:-~~l::;...~~"-·•·.....· •~ •..;.Jl'ti., .... , ..~., ';.••t••.;..•,'\:·~··• ·........•-.,'.:.+' .. •1 .... : . : .. ' . ·.:. . . .... . . ~ .._~: . . . • . . '• ·. ' .. :.; . . ' . . ·. ..- . , -:• • . ••' r ~ . l ·•(, .. , .. }il Photo of Gemlnl-7 from G..,mini-6, December 1965. The brlghtnus aura is a common space photo effect and often makes point 1ourcH appear to be surrounded by a "force field" or an " exhaust i:rail". NASA photo S-65-65304. Japanese UFO organization) was take an ordinary photograph oC Earth made Crom the Gemini-7 spaceship on December 4, 1965. The nose of the spacecraft fills the lower part of the frame, and on the nose, catching the glare of the sun, is a pair of roll ·control rocket thrusters used to acijust the attitude and spin rate of the Gemini. The original photo (NASA S65-63722, which I have personally examined) was then retouched by the unscrupulous hoaxter to eliminate the edge of the nose from view. so the dark surface of the sp!lct-ship merged into the dark Earth beneath. This left the two now mysterious lights seemingly suspendt:d in space, as it were. A normal space touri.,t photo was turned into conrincing UFO evidence, and thousands of people were fooled. 45 American spacemen are not the only ones reporting UFOs, according to the popular press. Stories that allegedly come from Moscow tell about UFOs following Soviet manned spacecraft in the Vostok and Voskhod series ten years ago. But such secrecy surrounds the entire Soviet space effort that these stories cannot be checked out. That very secrecy. however, is itself !l pn\·:•·, ( ..I t11·;.:~1n1. 1i l ;i_! :~iu ,i ,;,.; vahdit:1 of th·! ru,:iu. •. Sn r,1.,n'.) or<!ir:JI'_' th:,:,:-; Jl,v11L lhc So·.ic~ sp:.;;,J pro1rJ1n a:.: Sl' Crcl (and 1011g pri~on terms a,·. ;.it :i11yo11c who even :icc:idc 11l:ll!y cin,l;:es .-.uclr ,fatal thal it i,; inc:·l•ciit:1,· lh:tt ; o .,cn, tdr:: :i,1d .;i~­ nit:ca•ll:, fa.:L as a (.;fl) , i,:htin;: rould erer leak ou~. evcn if su.:h a thing had really har,p~ned. The rule,; of ~\·id,rncc hari? been Hretched and brokt?n by I.JFO partisans. It i.; not up to me to " prn,;e" that these sightings ne\·er took place. Nobody has a.; y~t s£:en any P.\'idcnce apart from a simp:c slat .?ment of fact that th.: .sightings did ta!,e place. I will be happy lo consider evidence when it becomes a\'ailahl<!. Let's examine more of cnese "cosmonaut UFO;;". Ir, UFOs From Behina The Iron Curtain, the UFO magazine 'Clypeus' is ouoted about an object seen by both Vostok-5 and Vostok-6, a fleet of disks seen by Voskhod-1, and "strailge cylinders in space which were perfectly formed and had no apertures" seen by Voskhod-1, Voskhod-2, and Gemini-4 (sic!). UFOs have even been blamed for the malfunction of the Voskhod-2 autopilot. As I have said, these "reports" are hardly evidence, and can be far more easily manufactured than refuted. SurE:ly one of the most specious and ghouli~h "space UFO" 3tories deals with the Soyuz-11 flight, on which th~ crewmen perished during their retur., to Eal'th. UFO literature has recently been circulating a "transcript" between the cosmonauts and grc,und control. The crewmen describe several glowing re·d objects and discuss them with flight controlle:-s. To anyone familiar with typical space-to-ground communications, this "transcript" is patently counterfeit. Someone's vivict imagination, embold,med by th·e knowledge that the men were dead and could not argue, must have creat£:d the entire incide11c. Without further evidenct), the entire cla.53 of "cosmonaut UFOs" must be rejected. D~liberate attc•mpts to " muddy tht? waters'' Jnd to manuf..ct'..lr!:.' iancasies are common in this LiFO genre, :,.; in othen;. In in\'e~tigatiu~ pll1Ho~rat-1hic :.-..:nt.v i ~p;, ..,•,·r.lfl Ccnl,·r) 1i.-ar li,,,i,t,,r,. U 11cl,•f\\'111h 1 1s an cXfl'Jl'i• er.-:,•u pilotuintrrp,cter v:hu h;,s c:,:iminl•d ,J\'cry si11;:lc pholo1;r.1ph bYuu;;ht b.:cl; from orbit :ind beyond, a111.l h1;; incredible memory can iJL·1, ,: 1y a d:?rad,J old p:1otc.i:n1µh, dl·~cribe tr.l! si .:.uation. and find th~ citJLio;1 in :i,<' old record books within minutes. 'rile oflicc oi this photogra­ mc-lric engir;c,el' is full of slacked iilm i.:ans, light t.ibles, world and le.cal maps, and piles of letters from ex-astronauts and ordinary citizens alite. Has he ser:n any UFO,;? Underwood answered lhat with a smile: "I've nt?n!r found anything in these pictures that puzzled me for long, and I'm kind of disappointed. It would be terribly exciting to find evidence for someone else's spaceship!'' When UFO writers hint broadly about a "NASA coverup" or "space censorship», they are essentially calling Dick Underwood and his colleagues a pack of liars. Distortion and withholding of the truth is no t a stranger to Underwood's oflicc, ho wever. Wht!n a liFO researcher named Al;i11 Sandler was w•irkin!l on a book and a mo\'ic ("lffOs: Past. l~csenl and F'ularc". lo he ad·,ert1sed as ;i "documentarv•') he \"isited Underwood's of[ir.c and looked through do7.ens of rolls of lilm. wriling down ordt!rs for prints of :inything that looked interesting. This is a standard service provided by NASA to journalists. SanrllP.r rhose a set of photographs for his movie, pnotographs which Underwood advised him probably only showt?d dust particles in front of the camera, debris outside the spacecrail, or glare on the windows (this was easy enough to prove by looking at pictures ahead of and behind the shots in question). Two photographs were particularly upsetting. They both showed a black back• ground with a string of lights in the middle o( the photograph. In the book (with the same name as the mo\·ie. • although written by another author, Robert Emeneggar) the two shots are . ., ® ;>r,o ~~ ,:,r Ag,, t>.:• 12 f ro m Go-nlr,;. 12 . T h ;, ,, pan of a seQuenc:e o f photos w h ,ch ta~~• trio evid,Jn,:<' o f t; FQ ~i;;htirt,;~ br A-;en t1 fr~m l1tJnt 11.tu d .lrk . After o ..1rk , o n ly t h e runn ing lighu are v•i•b le. One r e,oarchet Am~rican :i.;trnn.iuts, I 11'.>ri,~d clu:icly h:,s w,aorv pubh•hcd th •S IJ 1tcr p hoto grap h as a " UFO". .,, a ,d by N AS A te> be Agena trac:k • with Hich:ird Cndrrw,h)d at thL• NASA ing 1;9hts" . NASA p t,oto S 6 6 -63101. Johnson Sp:ice c~•11t~r (forrn,•rly rnc . · - - ·-- -- ---- · ·- -- .~ -· . ~ . I . . . .. . .. ,;. • • ,, -~,; . . ' .... . ; - . . ·• ·- ..• . ·=·. ~' .'·~·:. ;;:.,.... /~--.--: ~.-...~..:.:,·."~.;,./•-~ . .. "Said to be ranging lights" on Gemini-12, according to Sandler. Compare with earlier ph.:ito showing Agena in the sunlight. Deliberate slanting of e•1idence. ... . ' ..... ·:..~ ;f reproduced with the caption: "Shot during Gemini XII on Novamber 13, 1966, and said to be Agena Ranging Lights prior to docking". The erroneous implication of these twisted words is that this is another NASA excuse for some remarkable UFO photographs. Said to be ranging lights, indeed, sneers the book! "'that's exactly what tney were!" Underwood told me plaintively. "They are part of the complete sequence of twenty photographs showi11g the • Agena as it moves from the sunlit side of Earth inLo the shadow". As Underwood anJ l stood in the photo laboratory inside buildini,: No. 8 at the historic Hou$ton sµac.:e center. the 1;equence was rii:ht thcrt) in fro11t of our eyes 011 the gluwin~ viewing board. How did the '·UFO rcscarc.:hcr" react to this expl:rnalion, [ asked°! He continued to explain: " I took the whole sequence with me to Hollywood along with other films which NASA was providing. I showed the sequence to Sandler. He wasn't interested. Unfortunately he went ahead and used the phot_ographs anyway". Thousands more people v.-ere deceived. The flight of Gemini-11 h:5an a long battle between astronattt Ch:irles "Pete" Conrad and UFO belieVPI". The astronauts had taken three even more remarkable photogr::iphs. "Pete" Conrad had spotted a morir.g ubj..-ct outside his ·sindow and had s.1apped off a few frames of film, varying the .:xpo:;ure on t•ach sh,H in an :.ittempt to get at least 011t) ~oud ,ic·v which w<rnld show ;omclhin~. Pt-r a rcque,;t from NASA, NORAD soon reported th:it the object had b~en 47 :1 ;~;,._b;i:Ll t;4..., 111i,; r:t;, ::::),)i":lil•i':-· c•.:;;._.,J I'.'<.>tull .:;_ :\ci;()r:]ti,;_; LO .\i I° r\,, l"':: c:0111 pulet,. it ·soul:I ha,,~ .::; ,~-;,;.:(J Gemini's orhil s~v,.-ral l111 i1d;-_,J r,1;ks t,,-ilind Lh,• $p,,,:<;crart. Yet titis c,bj..-.:! wa~ in .i diftc'<cnt di:c·<.:tinn ;i ,1d 1•. a., nt\l('h l;)O do•;C. It ','/a_; :I lir O'. Dt)spilc these, objc.::tio.1.,. NOR ..\D wJ,; right i;:ir the wro11g re:1.,cns. T ;:l' object w,:s indeed P1:otor.-3, Hen tJ1ot,6h tlt•J Aeri:tl Phe,:om,mo:': Research Organizatiur, (APRO) and it~ research directo,·, Dr. James Harder, has made much of the cfocrepa,:cy and consid1m this the h\?st Gemini l=FO ever seen. c~(:_ plttf-5 11~1g~1q >1.'3,~\f') Few researchers hJ\"P. noticed. a;1d none had recogniz,,d the significacce of the fact, that the Proton-3 sateIiite was only hours away from burning up in the atmosphere. As its orbit decayed toward a fiery doom, it circled Earth fastPr and faster, run-r.ing ahead of the schedule predicted by NORAD. The simple truth, oft2n ig11ored or distorted by many writers, is that NORAD does not "track e\'erything in space" like the rada:.- screens of sor.1e air traffic control center. Inste:!d, objects which pass through tha beatt15 of a handful of worldwide radar sit<'s (at a range of a thousand miles or Jess) are observed and catalogued, a:id their orbits are calculated. These calcyla­ tions are then projected for'.'.'ard in time (the mathematical term is ··extra­ polated") to plot where the spacecr:11t should be if its orbit hasn't been changed. Gemini's orbit had been changed by a rendezvous rocket firing. Proton's orbit was changed by its decay. I ordered microfilm copies of the la.;t few NORAD predictions from the Tracking Reports Section at the NASA Goc!dard Space Center in Greenbelt, M;u-yland, and as soon as I read them l knew the answer. The predictions were off by Se\·eral hundred miles per da~: ! Each new projection made a correction to the previous one. Using a combination of these figures, a new dtitude difference between Gemini and Proton could easily be compul.:?d. It 11·:is entirdy close enough to coincide with th.­ astron:.iuts' sighting. Furthermore, th.i astronaut~ r.ad made a visual :.is ·,1·1.'ll ;i~ a i:;hoto5rJ,1hic record. Their t• y c11 i1,·,.:-.;s lestin:,>ny dcscrib.:s a sat,)lliw that looks [;;.e Proton-3 look.-d. a.-; shown by exhibit.; in Rus.,iail muse11111:;: a stubbv cyli.itkr ----- - . ••• • with four lar::e triantlular canted solar t... p.,nrb. (Conract compared lhc sight to Oul>ris from open the strap-on lwosters of a Titau•3 hatch on G omini• t 2. ........... rocket.) F:vcu the photographs show this when ~ludicd with real Proton-3 photographs close at hand. A~trn:::?:.:~ Co::~::d ~:-:d th:! l.iFO people clashed again ov~r his. next ;.. space mission. Apollo•12. According t lO the Research Director of A.PRO, Dr. ltn ~-··. Harder, Conrad reported that he was • f bei11g followed by a UFO on the way . to the moon. Conrad claims that it was just a joke about the large panels which enclose the lunar module during launch but are jettisoned later in the flight and which tumble through space a few miles from the Apollo all the way to the -moon. Harder says that Conrad, under pressure from a secret government agency, is lying. These are Conrad's words: "They've been after me for years because we were followed by a UFO on · the way to the moon. That, of course, was untrue. The guy who came up with it was going by our transcript where we saw debris from our own rocket and we were joking with the ground crew about it. He took this out of context. . .I called the ground and said, 'hey, gang, we're being followed, there's· some flashing object out there'. Some scandal sheet took that a.,d Fragment in focus at range of 3 to 5 feet-Sandler calls it 0 unidentiflabJe'', and Malian and Barry also use It. ra?'\ e11lo.~zx..,1..t-0, 16) ~ t.:: ' .' "'.. ·:--- ... ..... ..... . ....., • ...,,.,,.,, • wcc:r::a-.• ..,,,..y;..,·,._.,_,."',,..•..__._"..,.e..•...,•....:..J.•.r"-·- ·..,.....,..___:;,,•·...___~__._________... 48 ···--...- . . Blowups of Gemini-11 photos of Proton-3. Sun glare and el<treme magnification contribute to bizarre appearance, made a helluva story out of it. But it was nothing like anything I was connected with". Conrad has left NASA and lives in Denver, presumably beyond the reach of any NASA censors. He describes a phenomenon common to all Apollo moon flights; the claim that he saw a UFO is also common, but hardly as valid. Conrad confirmed these quotations in a letter to me dated April 12, 1976. "I hope your paper is widely printed.·• he added. Ref,ming to Harder's claim of coverup, Conrad could only say: "I think you have more than your share of Kooks." , < l ; f 1 I . , . • . ' ..· :;:·.. r · .• ..... t, ' , ~ ~· ~--.·-,.·. ~ . ~.:.\..® . Geminl-11 photo of Proton-3 (arrow) i nd extreme enlargement of image. UFO magazines often pront funv blobs without indicating that object w as h ighly magnified. f; llrn ertlf,icts cause "blobblneu". NASA photo S-66-54661. Let's take a moment to look at the Apollo--12 flight more ca·re(ully. It probably rates as one of the most "UFO-ridden" space flights ever made, and ·probably did more than any Apollo mission to encourage the stories o( astronaut sightings of UFOs. . What lies behind all these stories? Who started them? What is the "official" NASA position? Apollo-12 was launched on November 1-l, 1969, on the second moon landing m1ss1on. The crew co;'ISisted o( Gcmini-11 veterans "Pete" Conrad and Richard Gordon, and space rookie Alan Dean (Conrad had also nown into space on Gemini-5.) Taking off during a thunderstorm, the craft was twice hit by lightning which threatened to abort the mission.· Instead, the night proceeded successfully to the first pinpoint moon landing four days later. Astronauts Conrad and Bean flew their Luna.r Module in to a precision touchdown near the Surveyor-3 automatic moon probe. During a scheduled moon walk, the men retrieved samples from the robot crnft. The return on Eanh was "routine", if f?ights to the moon can ever be considered routine. 49 On the outbound leg, Conrad had radioed to Earth that the Apollo was "being followed". This message, trans­ mitted over the open radio link, was heard by hundreds of newsmen and by millions of Americans. It im:nediately gave rise to new UFO stories. According to the account best known to UFO believers (published in Saga magazine, May 1970, entitled " Apollo l 2's ~Jysterious Encounter with Flying Sauct'rs", written by T.G. Beckley and H. Salkinl. the astronau~,; watched Lwo nashing lights near ch~ir Command Module about 150,000 miles out from Earth. At first, the - ' A •' ' :-'_.:~--\~ ~ •• A pollo -I 1 U F O, 19G9. Obroct hunbh.'\J p .1st wind o w im,nr.d i\Jt•jly altar A1Jollo p ull~<1 aw ay from Saturn bo osto r. Metamo rpho-sis of obvious sp ac:ec:r aft i nsulatlon l r~qrnon t i nto "odcl•shao od UFO " is c ourtesy of Bob Barry o f tho fri nge " 20th Century UFO Bureau" . Hon> Hotze,·, " Ulonoua" ( 1976) assigr,s o bject to Joh n Glen n's flight. invents fictitious c:om mentory and con tin ues weavi ng myth• un­ lotterod by I ecu. ground thought it was their S-IV-8 astronauts decided to ignore the ··astrcnuut UFO sightings". Besides booster rocket but quickly calculated apparently harmless escort and carry the three astronauts, millions of that it would have been in a different on with their mission Americans saw the TV images and direction. Next, they suggested that ln lunar orbit. new (or perhaps the heard the voices of the crewmen the lights could have been pieces of same) UFOs dogged the spacemen. wondering what the objects could be. the Lunar Module "garage'', called During the descent to the lunar They were obviously unidentified, "SLA Panels", which are quite large surface, millions of television watchers they were flying in space, and they and highly reflective. Conrad, so the on Earth saw bright objects crossing were objects of some sort. Hence, they UFO story goes, remarked that this the field of view of the Apollo TV were UFOs. was unlikely since one of them had cameras. Simila.r objects were seen The "Fawcett List" of space UFOs suddenly taken off at a high velocity, during the launch from the moon and says that the astronauts "said a UFO something that a piece of space debris during the final approach to Earth. accompanied ~hem all the way to simply could not do. Finally, the . Here, then, is a major case for within 132,000_miles of the moon. . nf'~.,,.,.,"~ Ft.>.•:J ~~4":C-,!6S'Jr,~1Jffe»%ffifl ~ ¾4'""~ }4:t¢.:7f~ -, • ., . t:o(';. \ I(' • • • •• •r. ";'" •••.:-.:•i ••,,; ~•·----~ •C\:--.••::-;•:~•·--•:t~;~ ',?~•,~•~•'.:'• •·~~ :::\;•••'~ l • ·: ,· •. -·. •. ·- . • • :- ,... -·, •. .• .:· -_.,. -~- :f ·-~ ! .·, - ·: ... - • · ·,: ".*# ,- -· -· · I • • .-·..•.. ~-:.. .~. .. ... :. M ercury,~. " (.',:,n -e..i ~•FO " on Sco u C·a,o en :..,,, flight i n 19 6:3. Smeors and glaro, c hanQo from @) on-9 1r:ime l O ~he no"t r v1ti1h, a~tronn:ct ""tl~ ~napping p ic tures o f linip bllloon sub•,atellite . ::,tq, plirt,,. ?..)'3./ +, S 50 ____.._.,..__ - . ­ . . . .. . ' :,,.;. I .. J ◄ ~-.,., . •·/ 7 • JI ._!' ~. "'1 ,..,·.· .., ~ ,,;r.1_( J~; .•..,.- . .:.; ._ - .. ~. . • _•• / • • ~ (?-2) T wo obiecu drifting out of open hatch (lowe, r ight) of Geminl-12. Both spe_cks are out of focus and hence are within sevoral feet of camera. -which h ad• very large depth of field. Object on right, in focus, i• a scrap of paper. NASA photo S-66-62871. preceding them all the way." The origin of that mileage figure is obscure, but it lends unwarranted authenticity to the report. Observatories in Europe also watc:ied the two UFOs. ether sources re\'eal. Embellishing the story. another UFO source claims that "Next day, the 15th, at 21.15 hours, one bright revohing light approached the Apollo 12 spacecraft." Fawcett, not to be outdone, also claims that the astronauts photographed the UFO (or UFOs). One of the loudest proponents of the Apollo-12 UFO is APRO research director Or. James Harder. At a UFO symposium at the University of California at Santa Cruz on November 8, 1975, Harder claimed that one CFO "followed Apollo l'.! on three orbits around the moon". Further, "N,\SA suppressed the UFO incident~ for fonr of p,1nic", but Harder was ahle to discover the si~hting~ b"cau$e it " was disclosed by a member of the space team" who he refused to id1:ntif:: . 51 !.iinc:l' all thf" m:ill.'riill ll;m.lcr used to ..prove" the r xistcncc Qf the inddcnts werl.' public information ( Harder could have read it in Saga, which is hardlr a top scc;rrt )!O\'crnmcnt r:!port), his rdcrcnce to a co\·eruµ and to sr.cret inside informatiu,1 were clearly only gimmicks t\1 impre~r; the news, media with the value of his •'information". NASA, meanwhile, says that no such UFO event took place. The lights, according to Dale Myers (Associate Administrator for Manned Space flight: quoted in a letter dated Feb. 5, 1973 to Mr. Donald Ratsch of APROj, were spacecraft fragments: "During all of our Apollo lunar missions. objects have been sighted by the various crews. Subsequent to the crew sightings, the flight controllers determined the observations were probably either the S-IVB booster, the spacecraft lunar adapter (SLA) panels, or smaller objects such as mylar foil particles. Because of their large size and highly reflective surfaces, the S-IVB and SLA panels should be visible at great distances in the space emironment..." Astronaut Conrad, as quoted earlier, claimed that the flashing lights were obviously SLA panels but that he was 'joking with the ground. He denounced the Saga story explicitly and gave his opinion that Harder was a "kook". Astronaut Gordon has publicly stated that he has never seen a UFO on any .;pace flight. Alan Bean, the only one of the three still on active NASA duty, issued a statement soon after Harder's latest charges went out over the news media late in 1975. In a UPI dispatch: "Astronaut Alan Bean...said that at no time during his mission did he ever see an unidentified objecL Bean said that there were some metallic parts which floated behind their sp:>r.e­ craft after the Apollo-12 !Uf'l.?r module lifled off from t~•• r:~oon. He said these small p:.-<'::.; were visible until they (tht> ... •!:onauts) made an engine burn 'f':c: metallic objects wer~ parts er <!",e insulation which came off the lunar module during the launch phase and lunar orbital phase. 'At no time •did we see anything which was not of our spacecraft, either during lunar orbit or during the voyage to and from the moon,' Bean stated." To Harder and his "N,\SA cuv~rup", these statements are just more lies designed to confuse the American public. So let's go back lo the key r\pnll 11-l 2 LlFU c111:ountcr and try lo determine just wh:1 is confused. Lale on No,.·embcr 15th. 1969, about 150,000 statute mi!es from Earlh. the Apollo crew was talking to cilDSllle communicator astronaut Ger~rJ C:m about SQmc lights they were watching out their wir.dow. Apollo: The object is very bright and it is obviously something that is tumbling. It is tumbling (at) one and one half rev(olution)s per second, or at. least it is flashing at us (at) about that (rate)... CAPCOM: Roger. We are standing by. CAPCOM: (Apollo) 12, (this is) Houston. Apollo: Go ahead. CAPCOM: As best we can tell, looking at things down here, on those SLA panels, we assume they weren't imparted with any great amount of delta-V (velocity change)-like anything more than one or so feet per second when they separated (thirty-three hours ago). Your SLA panels would probably be only about 300 (nautical) miles (345 statute miles) away fro m you right now. **** The following reply by Conrad has been claimed by UFO believers to indicate that the lights (the so-called "SLA panels") have suddenly pulled away from the Apollo, something that a tumbling piece of debris could not do. To clarify the meaning, punctuation and a few extra parenthetical words have been added by the UFOiogists: Apollo: That could be true, but gee whiz, when I (just) turned around I saw one of those "SLA panels" leaving the area at a high rate of speed, and it loo ked to me like it was leaving us pretty (fast)-at a pretty rapid clip, like it got a lot more than a foot per second or so. CAPCOM: Well, since we don't really have any idea how they left, or what their trajectory could be, it's kind of tough really to say just what the heck that could be. Apollo: Okay. We'll assume it's friendly anyway, OK? The UFO reasoning, as worded by APRO member Srad Sparks. goes as follows: ''After the SLA panels separated and the S-IVB's tanks were emptied (on No\·. U) they could not change their ·,t>locity simply because they had no form of propulsion to do so. But Conrad saw one of the "SLA panels" (on Nov. 15th ) suddenly leave its position at a "high rate of sµccd ... an i:11;,ossib1lity, unless it really was a m.lal!uvcrable spacecraft of some ::-ort. nut where docs one find a maneuverable spacecrait nearly 150,000 miles from the earth? The :inswer: (excepting ,\ pollo 12 itself) in November of 19C9 th~re weren't any. The conclusion is inescapable: One (possibly two) maneuverable spacecraft not of man-made origin were following our Apollo 12 on November 14 and 15, 1969." To anyone familiar with the flight plan of an Apollo moon flight, Conrad's words imply nothing of the sort. Two facts must be brought to mind. First, Apollo and the Capcom were discussing the present position of the SLA panels based upon their initial separation velocities from the spent S-IVB rocket stage. Second,. the SLA panels break free after the Apollo pulls off from the booster; the astronauts then perform a maneuver called the "turnaround" the Command Module returns to the booster to dock with the now-exposed Lunar Module, before pulling the LM free from its "garage". Striking the UFOlogist's punctua­ tion and clarifying words from the communication, and putting it in proper perspective, what Conrad was saying was: Apollo: That could be true (that the SLA panels were flying off at one or so feet per second), but gee whiz, when I turned around (right after they flew free, thirty-three hours ago) I saw one of those SLA panels leaving the area (of the LM "garage") at a high rate of speed, and it looked to me that it was leaving us pretty...at a pretty rapid clip, like it got a lot more than a foot per second or so. The UFO believers' reasoning-and the entire basis for Harder's and for the Saga article's Apollo-12 UFO sighting-is phony. The most generous description of it would be a mistake, a misreading of the transcript's meaning in an attempt to "prove" a UFO incident that never really happened outside of the fertile imaginations of certain UFO believers. Conrad's statement, Gordon's statement. Bean ·s statement. and the NASA letter must stand validated on this case: Apollo-12 was not followed by a t;FO on its to the moon. But how about on the way back? "A light of indistinct shape" was spotted just prior to re-en try, 52 - ~---__ )· _:-_·-····-··~ ~ ~ · -·· --•-..._,' ,. ,.-:·. 1 ......_____ l ··-.. . :- . ... • ... !"'... • •• •• .: . . ·• l·. ' . ... : >:,;;,_;; ~.~: : ..>ct-'. :'.:,·.'. _: \ . . .w~.:.~~:,. ~ -.....,-;;; ;~·,!<~-~--~ ~- :·,::: :~ J::.s:,:,.£.,.:·,,·~~i«~-;c :+,21~-==.: .. , ;­ "" Publisned n~wsp!per story on UFSs captions this p11oto:"Theso two UFOs wo, u photographed on July 19, 1969-the day before Apo:lo's historic: moon landing­ during Buzz Aldrin'• scheduled lunar photo session. Noto the similarity to the •hot snapped throo years oarlier during Gcminl-12." according to UFO sources. Saga photos taken during the? 1960s. reports that "...at 11:47 a.m. on Whatever it was, this "halo" appE'ared November 24th, the spokesman for only in the photo, and was n«?ither Apollo 12 reported in a startled voice seen nor remarked on by the that they were all' watching a bright astronauts. red object flashing brilliantly against Houston radio commentator and the earth." This incident was carefully UFO enthusiast Frank Haley has his analyzed by Brad Sparks of APRO (I own theory about why the Apollo-12 am indebt£:ci to his letler to Saga of TV camera did not work on the moon August 28, 19i0, a letter Saga editor (NASA says Bean accidentally pointed ne\'er bothered to answer), who it toward the sun). Says Haley, "The objects that "the astronauts did not i::amera was intentionally shut off to report that the object. they were seeing avoid showing something on the moon was red, and they stated specifically that disturbed the astronauts" that 'it's a steady light', not flashing." ("Haley's Comment" newsletter, Mar. It was seen between th"'m and the dark 22, 1976). It is only a matter of time earth, somewhere off the coast of before this nonsense is absorbed into India by a guess of the cr"'wmen. the lore of the "Apollo-12 UFOs''. Perhaps it was a ship's searchlight, But Apollo 12 did see some perhaps a fire, perhaps a violent unidentified flying objects, and NASA lightning storm...there is no reason to engineers were justifiably concerned suspect that it was a craft in space. that they could have been debris from The astronauts lost sight of the light as important spacecraft systems which they turned the Apollo to take a series might indicate unexpected failures, or of photographs of the sunrise. which might interfere with other The wild fantasies printed in Saga spacecraft equipment. Hence, the dn not end here. Beckley and Salkin Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston claim that the astronauts had been (now the Johnson Space Center) gave "startled by unaccountable seismic a contract to Lockhe£:d to study the disturbances on th.:- lunar surface." objects seen on the TV pictures and on This event never occurred; there were some movie film. no such earthquakes during their visit. The Lockhc-ed report was quietly Beckley and Salkin refer to "a issued on March 18, 19i0, about the mysterious blue halo encircling one of same time that the sensationalized and our spacemen." Sparks of APRO fictionalized Saga story was being consicfors thi:; lo ha,·c bE't?ll lun3r dust printed. Titled "linidcntifhid Visual •kicked up •.,·h1le thu crcwmt',l were Phenomena Associated with Space walkii;g around. Photo analyst Dick Flight" (:-.iA$A Contract '.'i .\S 9-5191. lind,,r·.rood sutgestect that it is a LEC; HASO No. 071-80-013), the defect in the denilopmeut of the report documents tlw "moon pigc:Qns" photo cuusE>d h,· thl' , l\'id solar i:larc (a term "coi11E:d by :'\.\S.-\ enl:{inc:t.'r.; lo oil' oi' a lii~hly ,Hl~cti,·e s11fi·ace: dcscribu UIH!Xpcctcci 1Jbjccls seen in Undt•rwood quil'kly located half a operational photo1:r:iphy that ddy do1.e11 ~imilar "ltalou5" on other space positive identification") of .-\polio• 12. l'o11f.r:1rl t.'lll!i111•1•r:; wen• F.D. Ul•att~ and ,I.G. !l:nrm . "Unidenlirkd \'bua! plwnon:C':1.1 as~oci:ilcd with space flight were rather common opc,,:tionally." rcn,aJ lhe authors." but. ''. .little or no clo~u111clllJli1111 ll1 p,1,~ cvc11t.; has i,e..-11 macie." Rcfore UF'O bclle,·crs jump uµ and d1Jw11 with confim~a,ion of a whole new family of ''astronaut sightings of UFO3'', the authors announce? their intention of demonstrating that 1'such evenl~ were spacecraft debris associated with an earlier pyrotechnical operation, or ice, or window reflections. Cases for each of these theories have been presented and exhibits of similar occurenccs are included. Positive identifi~ation was not possible. . . The quality of tile imagery precludes a precise definition of the object under question. . . In general, it takes much more information to identify an object that ifdoes to detect it." Sixteen millim~ter color magazine 11651\1, exposed on Apollo-12. shows three objects, called "A", "B", and "C". The objects appeared during the Ll\·l jettison man«?uver in lunar orbit. "A" is believed to be a small segment of the docking channel; "B" was identified by engineers as a portion oi the docking ring, possibly the fiberglass seal; "C" was probably part of the electrical harness. All were near the spacecraft and were tumbling. From this and other examinations, Beatty and Baron concluded that "most 'moon pigeons' have as their source a programmed pyrotechnic event and are the normal debris associated with such an incident. They are often spectacular. . . The main thing to be learn«?d from this study is that the event (in question) was, in all probability, a normal result of routine spacecraft operations. . . These data will undoubtably be of use to the engineering, scientific, and public relations communities." The closing reference clearly indicates that Beatty and Baron were aware of the "Apollo• 12 UFOs" controversy and felt that their study would be useful in demolishini: any UFO buffs' wild n1mor;. unfortunately. tht? ·'moon pigeons" rrport seems to ha\·e been tiled a\\ ay in the :--i..\S.-\ archi,·C's. Baron. who still wurks at the Joh11,;011 Space Cerlll'r, told me early in H)i6 that ht! ne\ l!r got any feedback on his report, e,·t'n thoui:h it was fun doini,: it and it had 5.i ... · '· ~ -.. >}{ This photo was snapped only moments after Aldrin's other Apollo 11 shot. Here the two UFOs have begun their separation and a halo-like force field between the two is c/ea,/y shown. ~ pretty obvious implications for UFO reports. NASA apparently decided to let the UFO writers spread their ;-umors, hoping that the stories would fade away if ignored. What had happened. though. was a riew shot in the arm for ·'astronaut UFO cases". The explanations could never catch up with the mi~inlerpreta• tions and w1ong impressions engendered by the onirlteard conversations and l'iewt'd i111a).(r~ (mm Apollo-12. :\lillions of ,\meric..ins were practically eyewitnesses to a "space UFO", and were suit