Showing posts with label By Paul Dean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label By Paul Dean. Show all posts

Thursday, June 14, 2018

The UFO Controversy, Richard C. Doty and His Air Force Service Records

Bookmark and Share

Military Retirement Actions (Richard Doty)

     The UFO controversy contains a handful of individuals who need no introduction. One such figure is Richard C. Doty. Formally with the United States Air Force (USAF), Doty has become somewhat legendary. To some, he is an officially sanctioned disinformation agent. To others, he is the quintessential truth twisting hoaxer. To many, he is an odd combination of these two extremes. I am not going to give yet another synopsis of Doty’s unusual contribution to UFO history. Others have already done so, and they have done it quite well. There are three books that immediately come to mind when pondering the Doty saga. They are, Christian Lambright’s X-Descending, Greg Bishop’s Project Beta: The Story of Paul Bennewitz, National Security, and the Creation of a Modern UFO Myth, and Mark Pilkington’s Mirage Men: A Journey into Disinformation, Paranoia and UFOs. Further, MJ Banias’s upcoming treatment of UFO subculture will also contain an important Doty discussion.
Paul Dean
By Paul Dean
ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com
6-13-18

Over the years, many a researcher has attempted to clarify exactly what Richard Doty did with the USAF, and when, and where. A near total lack of Doty’s USAF service records has presented significant barriers to further investigation, and the few items which have been legally released in recent years are very brief indeed. Just once, though, a dogged investigator got quite lucky.

Sometime in late 1987, or early 1988, UFO researcher Larry Bryant submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (OSAF) for copies of Richard Doty’s USAF service records. Soon after, Special Agent Cecil W. Fry, the Chief of Information Release at Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) Headquarters, Washington DC, made the decision to withhold all existing records related to Doty. On the 21st of Feburary, 1988, Bryant wrote back to the OSAF appealing AFOSI’s verdict. On the 31st of October, 1988, Mr. Steven A. Thompson, who was with the OSAF’s Office of Administration, replied to Bryant’s appeal letter, and, thankfully, enclosed a number of records, albeit with redactions. While all this was going on, Bryant was also corresponding with Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. On the 8th of September, 1988, Bryant submitted an FOI request to Kirtland asking for any service paperwork they held on Doty. It is unknown who initially handled his request, but two weeks later it was forwarded to the 1606th Air Base Wing. On the 27th of September, 1988, Mr. A. Albert Sanchez, who was the FOI Manager at the 1606th ABW, released a significant number of records to Bryant. Put together, the OSAF and the 1606th ABW released some twenty-five pages of Doty’s service files.

We don’t know how many more pages may exist. Even the USAF may not have a central Doty service file. Further, some of the documents, as I have mentioned, are redacted. Whatever the situation, the records Larry Bryant did manage to obtain have, to my knowledge, seldom seen the light of day. I do not intend to analyse this material. Other researchers can do that, and no doubt some will. So, with that, Doty’s service file, or at least some of it, is imaged below.

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

BREAKING: Formerly Secret UFO Program NOT Called, 'Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program' (AATIP)?

Bookmark and Share


The "Advanced Aerospace
Weapons Systems Application Program"

     Last year, in 2017, a hitherto unacknowledged US Department of Defence (DOD) UFO study program, as if we need reminding, was publicly revealed. The name of this effort has been quoted as the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (AATIP). Sometimes the word “Aviation”, rather than “Aerospace”, has been used in the title, but whatever the exact terminology, the DoD themselves have confirmed, at least, that it did exist. The massive Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) was where it was housed, and the accepted timespan of the endeavour was 2007 to 2012. Official
Paul Dean
By Paul Dean
ufos-documenting-the-evidence
4-30-18
UFO analysis work continues today, and was apparently migrated to a new interagency partnership, but that story will have to wait. The AATIP effort was headed by DOD staffer, Luis Elizondo, who specialises in the intelligence, counter–intelligence and security arena. So much has now been authored and debated about this whole affair, that it would be pointless to rehash the same information yet again.

In March, 2018, I was contacted by someone who claimed to be in a senior defence program leadership role. He stated that the UFO program on everyone’s lips was not officially called the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (AATIP). This was, apparently, a loose, almost ad hoc term for one part of a somewhat larger defence program. The true name of the overall program, or at least the official starting title, was the “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” (AAWSAP), or something extremely similar. Of course, even by early 2018, dozens, if not hundreds, of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, including some by myself, have been submitted to the Defence Intelligence Agency, and other organisations, about the quoted AATIP effort. All have met with lethargy and processing wait times measuring in the months or years. Armed with this information, on the 27th of March, 2018, I submitted an FOI request to the DIA which asked for:
“…any electronic or hardcopy records that include: mission statements, program overviews, program aims, fact sheets, program briefs for Commanders or other senior leadership, program histories, and other general information regarding a program (either still running, or, was running in the last 12 years) within the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The name of that program is “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP) or extremely similar.”
On the 30th of March, 2018, the DIA’s Chief of FOIA and Declassification Services Office, Alesia Y. Williams, replied to my request, which was sent to me in the mail. My request had been received by the DIA on the 28th of March, 2018, and given the FOIA processing reference “FOIA-0222-2018”. It acknowledged that my submission was at the back of the queue, which Williams stated was “in excess of 1,139 requests”. Also, in the reply letter, the exact wording of my FOI request, which FOI officers usually quote back to you, had been changed slightly. Things had been moved around. I’m not sure what to make of this, Maybe they like to clean up the wording of FOI requests to make record searching easier for the poor soul who gets landed with the job. I’m not sure. Furthermore, my request was not going to be processed within the normal 20-day time period. Williams quoted “unusual circumstances” such as the need to search for and collect records from multiple facilities, the likely volume of records, and the need for consultation with other interested agencies. We’ve seen this same wording time and again. Its normal now. I can say it in my sleep. I have imaged Alesia Y. ’Williams response below.

FOIA Response To Paul Dean (0222-2018) AAWASAP (1) 3-30-2018 FOIA Response To Paul Dean (0222-2018) AAWASAP (2) 3-30-2018

Talking further with my defence contact, he stated that I better try the Office of the Secretary of Defence and Joint Staff (OSD/JS). Specially, he stated that the Office of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD AT&L) or the Office of the Under Secretary for Intelligence (USD I) would likely have at least some records related to the AATIP, or, as I was now focusing on, the AAWSAP effort. As those entities are located within the OSD/JS, I submitted an FOI request to the OSD/JS FOIA portal on April the 6th, 2018. The Chief of the OSD/JS FOIA office, Stephanie L. Carr, who I have had significant correspondence with before, prepared her reply on the 12th of April, 2018. My request was given the reference number “18-F-0785”. Her reply contained the same processing wait times, issues with searching and collecting records, etc as they always do. In fact, the OSD/JS FOI workload was at a massive 2,283 requests, and it isn’t going south down anytime soon.

Of course, all this is based on what a DoD contact told me. The term “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program”, or its “AAWSAP” abbreviation, hasn’t been mentioned by anyone else. Not the New York Times, not Luis Elizondo, and not even the DIA’s public relations staffers who must, by now, have been flooded with enquiries. Wanting more confirmation, I decided, on the 15th of April, 2018, to ask someone attached to this whole thing if they would confirm a rather bold claim I had. Taking a risk, I brashly stated that “I now know AATIP wasn’t the real name of the UFO program…”. The person who was at the receiving end of this paused and replied “I know, I know.. What have you gone and done now?”. I answered, “Give me one word, just one term, from the real title, and I’ll tell you what I think it is..”. He mulled over the issue and then stated “Weapon!”. I replied, “Yep, how’s Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program sound?”. He replied, “Well, good luck, good luck, you have it.”. Clearly, there was something to this.

Part of this potential paper trail is the issue of a number of audio-visual releases which purport to show UFO’s. Somewhere in amongst the “To The Stars Academy” (TTSA), the The New York Times, and the US military itself, it has been made possible to have this media disclosed openly. Again, only the barest discussion is needed here. We all know the story. The so-called “Nimitz” or “Tic Tac” UFO footage, and the “Gimbal” UFO event, as well as the newer “Go Fast” incident, were all imaged by F/A–18 Super Hornets off the coastline of the USA. That much is accepted. But the manner of how these audio-visual records were declassified, processed, released, whatever has been open to some debate. I had assumed that the FOI had been invoked to see that the DoD, and maybe specifically the US Navy, release the various pieces of footage. However, when I contacted the Assistant to the Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs (ATSD/PA), some time ago, they couldn’t shed any light on the matter. On the 25th of February, 2018, Elizondo spoke on radio podcast “Coast to Coast”. There, he revealed that he used the services of the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR). In conjunction with that effort, Elizondo said he utilised a pair of DOD publications which govern the clearance and release of certain information to the public. Moreover, Elizondo stated that the document he used was a “DD Form 1910”.

I had previously written about all this in Part 1 of what should be a two or three part blog series. Quoting heavily from my work there, DOPSR is an office which is located within the Office of the Secretary of Defence (OSD) and is “responsible for managing the Department of Defense security review program, reviewing written materials both for public and controlled release”. The two publications ostensibly the center of Elizondo’s video release efforts are “DOD Directive 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release”, which was certified as current on the 22nd of August, 2015, and “DOD Instruction 5230.29, Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public Release”, which was promulgated on August the 6th, 1999. As stated, Elizondo said he used a DOPSR–issued “DD Form 1910”. Its title is “Clearance Request for Public Release of Department of Defense Information”. Completed forms are submitted to the Chief of DOPSR, and a copy is sent for coordination with to the DOD’s Director for Freedom of Information and Security Review (DFOISR). Copies of whatever material, be it documents or audio–visual material, that the applicant wants released are submitted with the “DD Form 1910”. On the 1st of March, 2018, I submitted an FOI request to the Office of the Secretary of Defence and Joint Staff (OSD/JS) for a copy of whatever they had in the form of DOPSR “DD Form 1910”. Again, like most FOI requests, slowness defines the progress.

Swedish researcher Roger Glassel has done something that I didn’t, and, to my knowledge, no one else has either. He has found a two official references, and I mean actual documents, to this new “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” caper. Glassel isn’t overly interested in obtaining all manner of AATIP, or AAWSAP, or whatever, records. He is focused on finding out what sort of formal DoD “chain of custody” documents were involved in the release of the audio-visual material that shows unknown objects being chased by the US Navy’s best combat aircraft. As mentioned, Luis Elizondo, who headed the AATIP desk, stated he used DOPSR “DD Form 1910” documents. But Glassel’s research has met with denials and dead ends. Writing on Curt Collin’s blogsite “Blurry Blue Lines”, Glassel has detailed the steps he has taken to find out if indeed DOPRS was involved, and if not, how were the videos released. Put simply, the DOD have basically denied that they released anything. Quoting from Glassel’s detective work would be to lengthy here, but it should be reviewed to understand what has been going on. Its all here.

As I eluded, Glassel has found two examples of the AAWSAP project title. This had been shared privately with me, by two people, and I thought that there was simply no references available to absolutely confirm them for sure. I searched, but with no luck. Well, the “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” indeed did, or does, exist. Glassel, on a hunch, with keen-eyed Curt Collins in tow, discovered that Dr. Eric Davis, who has been closely associated with the AATIP and TTSA story, had published a number of scientific papers for the DIA, and two of those publications were already released and available online. The titles are, “Traversable Wormholes, Stargates and Negative Energy” and “Warp Drive, Dark Energy and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions”. Both are listed as “Defence Intelligence Reference Documents” and both were published in late 2009. More importantly, the header for the documents is “Acquisition Support Division (DWO-3), Defense Warning Office, Directorate for Analysis, Defence Intelligence Agency”. The final, and most critical piece of information though, is a coloured stamp bar which says:
“This product is one in a series of advanced technology reports produced in FY 2009 under the Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Warning Office’s Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Application (AAWSA) Program…”
There it is. A reference to an “Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Application (AAWSA) Program…” is right there in black-and-white. Now, the exact term is slightly different to what I was told. The terms “Weapons” and “Systems” are, as per the Dr. Eric Davis DIA Defence Warning Office (DWO) papers, actually “Weapon” and “System”. That’s not unexpected I guess. The usage of the word “Program” within the full title may not be officially correct either. It’s a case of “AAWSAP” versas “AAWSA”. Whatever the situation, its abundantly clear that this is all the same thing, and it relates very heavily to the original AATIP effort. Furthermore, Glassel, who had much earlier submitted an FOI request to the OSD/JS over all this, has been able to modify, or re-scope, the wording of his submission to take into account his clever AAWSAP, or AAWSA, discovery.

For ease, I’ll use what I was originally told, even if it may not be exactly the name. The bottom line is that this sudden producing of old DIA documents with the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program reference in plain view has now meant I am freer to discuss it. I had been told to keep it to myself, and to submit my FOI requests as I wished. Under no circumstances was I to fling all the details around. The main person helping me has a clean security record. He doesn’t need any drama, even if it is just over this increasingly well-known UFO program issue. With Glassel’s work in mind, I spoke today to my defence contact again, and, as we are making headway, he told me a bit more. What I gather is that the AATIP desk was a major part of the overall AAWSAP effort. Also, the term AATIP was developed over time, and may have been tacked on to, or into, AAWSAP. AATIP was a looser title for internal usage, and it continued in other channels while the overall AAWSAP appears to have ended. Then I asked him about the release of the UFO videos. Despite what the DoD is stating, he insists that Elizondo used a DOPSR “DD Form 1910”. I challenged this by asking why the DoD Public Affairs desks are saying otherwise. He stated that “corners were cut” and that “PA people’s noses are out of joint”. Public Affairs approvals didn’t happen after DOPSR were involved, and they should have. All this makes things rather difficult. If so many FOI requests have stipulated that AATIP is the target, and no one has mentioned, except me and Roger, the AAWSAP angle, its going to be a slow year.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

'Getting the Mainstream Media to Approach the UFO Puzzle as Legitimate News

OREGON UFO EVENT: Air Traffic Control Audio Tapes Released via FOIA Request

What the Government Knows About UFOs | Interview with Harry Reid

3rd AATIP Video & the Pentagon UFO Study – Interview with Luis Elizondo | VIDEO

Third Government UFO Video Released | VIDEO

The Military Keeps Encountering UFOs – Why Doesn’t the Pentagon Care? | VIDEO

UFO Research Gets New Life By Way of The Pentagon's Mysterious Project

BREAKING NEWS: The Pentagon’s Mysterious UFO Program Revealed | VIDEO

Ex-Military Official Details Pentagon's Secret UFO Hunt | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Billionaire Robert Bigelow's Decades-Long Obsession With UFOs

Navy F-18 'Gimbal UFO' Video Explained?

Post Pentagon’s UFO Research Program Revelations – Skeptics Regroup

Understanding the Science of UFOs and Space Time Metric Engineering | VIDEO

Secret UFO Program Recorded Encounters with Unknown Objects | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

UFO-Pentagon FOIA Request Delayed

BREAKING NEWS: The Pentagon’s Mysterious UFO Program Revealed | VIDEO

Ex-CIA Chief - Keep Studying UFOs

Herald Tribune Reporter, Billy Cox Queries CIA On Chase Brandon's Roswell UFO Claims

Luis Elizando Former Head of Secret Pentagon UFO Program Describes Five Categories of UFOs | INTERVIEW

While Waiting for the Next New York Times UFO Bomb to Drop

Navy Pilot, Who Chased A UFO, Says ‘We Should Take Them Seriously’

UFO Legacy: What Impact Will Revelation of Secret Government Program Have?

UFO Reports at Nuclear Missile Sites and The Pentagon UFO Program

Astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson Discusses The Pentagon UFO Program on Colbert | VIDEO

Ex-Military Official Details Pentagon's Secret UFO Hunt | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Pentagon's Secret UFO Search, Stanton Friedman Weighs In | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

What the New York Times UFO Report Actually Reveals

'Second' Navy Pilot Comes Forward Re UFO Encounter | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

'The Pentagon’s Newly Revealed UFO Research Program' – What a Week!

On the Trail of a Secret Pentagon U.F.O. Program

UFO-Pentagon Story Reflects Fundamental Problems

Pentagon UFO Study Examined UFO Activity at Nuclear Missile Sites Says Former U.S. Senator Harry Reid

UFO Study Focused on U.S. Military Encounters

PENTAGON UFO PROGRAM: 'Recovered Material' From UFOs Discussed By Leslie Kean | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Senator Reid Discusses Secret UFO Program | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Navy Pilot Recounts UFO Encounter | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Aliens, UFOs, Flying Discs and Sightings -- Oh My!

Secret Programs, U.S. Senators and Money, Who Wants to Talk UFOs Now?

Navy Pilot Talks: The UFO Jammed Their Radar — ‘It Accelerated Beyond Any Airplane We Have’

BREAKING NEWS: The Pentagon’s Mysterious UFO Program Revealed | VIDEO

Navy UFO Encounter: 'It Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’ – F/A-18F Pilot | VIDEO

Secret UFO Pentagon Program Explained By Leslie Kean | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Secret Pentagon UFO Program Spent Millions

The Pentagon’s Secret Search for UFOs




REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE


Thursday, March 29, 2018

UFO Dives at Military Police Officers

Bookmark and Share

Saucers Sighted at Savannah - The Atlanta Consitution 9-9-1973
"Suddenly, the phenomena 'dropped to treetop level' and 'came straight towards' them. It quickly became apparent that the lights were 'only a cluster underneath a metallic looking saucer–shaped body'. The mass of the object wasn’t self–illuminating, but, rather, was lit up from beneath."
     During the early hours of September the 8th, 1973, the United States Army’s historic Hunter Army Airfield, located near Savannah, Georgia, was apparently the scene of a provocative, “close encounter” UFO incident. Two military policemen, MP Specialist Bart Burns and MP Specialist Randy Shade, who were assigned to the 298th Military Police Company (298th MPC) at Hunter, were the main witnesses. The local Provost Marshall at nearby Fort Stewart was involved, and event was the subject of a US Army “Serious Incident Report”. Two years later, Army officers at Headquarters, 1st Brigade, 24th Infantry Division, at Fort Stewart, would have to deal with the event all over again.
Paul Dean
By Paul Dean
ufos-documenting-the-evidence
3-16-18
Considerable media attention was given to the UFO sighting, and both witnesses were able to make statements to reporters. In fact, press coverage was so swift that it appears that local the Army units were caught somewhat off guard. Furthermore, the next night, on the 9th of September, 1973, MP Burns, and other military police officer, MP Murray, would report another UFO in the vicinity of Hunter, though this secondary incident was little more than a light–in–the–sky event. Ultimately, in a rare coup, the Army would officially release significant documentation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

In the late 1960’s, Savannah’s Hunter Army Airfield operated in conjunction with the much larger Fort Stewart, located some forty miles to the south–west. The combined bases were home to the Army’s Flight Training Center (USAFTC) which provided educational instruction and flying training for new AH–1G Cobra attack helicopter crews, who included pilots from not just the Army, but the Republic of Vietnam too. At Hunter, the elite Attack Helicopter Training Department, located in a facility known as “Cobra Hall”, was particularly respected. But as the Vietnam War stagnated, and Army priorities changed, the USAFTC mission was terminated in mid–1972, and both Hunter and Fort Stewart were downgraded to Garrison status. By August, 1973, Hunter was deactivated, with only security and basic administrative staff assigned to the base. Fort Stewart wasn’t far behind. An exciting reversal of fortunes, for both sites, would come in soon after. Fort Stewart became the proud home of the Army’s re–activated 24th Infantry Division in October, 1974, and Hunter followed suit in 1975 as a support facility. Both bases continue operational activities today.

During Hunter Army Airfield’s deactivation and caretaker status, in the mid–1970’s, the base was guarded by personnel from the 298th Military Police Company (298th MPC). The 298th was a US Army Forces Command (USAFORSCOM) unit but remained independent. Though designated a Company, it was nearly the size of a full Battalion, and reported to the local Provost Marshall at Fort Stewart, who in turn reported to Fort Stewart’s Garrison Commander. The role of 298th MPC police personnel at Hunter was to investigate suspicious activity, perform security checks on various facilities, and perform base perimeter checks through regular patrols. It is worth mentioning too that the United States Air Force’s (USAF) small 702nd Radar Squadron (702RS), which was assigned to Aerospace Defence Command (ADCOM) at the time, maintained a primary radar facility at the base, though its mission and functions were unrelated to the Army.

In September, 1973, Georgia saw an increase in reported UFO sightings. Witnesses were numerous and varied, and local newspaper outlets published the more soundly described occurrences with a degree of sense and caution. But it was the close–up–and–personal UFO incident at Hunter that was the most provoking. Drawing from numerous primary sources, including US Army records, witness interview testimony, and local newspaper accounts, a chronology of events can be established. Around 2:30am, on the 8th of September, 1973, MP Bart Burns and MP Randy Shade were driving amongst Hunter’s installations, as part of their routine patrols, when they noticed a bright cluster of multi–coloured, flashing lights tracking across the sky. The sky was cloudy, with cloud layers at both nine–thousand feet and twenty–five thousand feet. MP Burns, who had previously served as a helicopter crew chief, didn’t feel it was the lighting on an aircraft, but had to assume it was anyway. He estimated the altitude of the lights to be no greater than two thousand feet, but admitted that it was “difficult to judge”. In any event, the curious lights disappeared behind tall trees. No sound, or other stimuli, was apparent, and the MP’s continued on their patrol towards the disused runways.

Shortly later, at 2:45am MP’s Burns and Shade were patrolling the taxiways near the northern permitter of the base, and the unidentified lights returned. MP Shade, who was driving, would state that they “sure looked like the same collection of flashing lights” as what they had seen moments earlier, and that they now “hovered near the end of the runway”. Perplexed, MP Shade stopped the patrol car to get a stable look at the phenomena, which hung motionless in the sky. At this point, the MP’s were still prepared to believe that the object, somehow, could be a helicopter, despite the lack of noise. Suddenly, the phenomena “dropped to treetop level” and “came straight towards” them. It quickly became apparent that the lights were “only a cluster underneath a metallic looking saucer–shaped body”. The mass of the object wasn’t self–illuminating, but, rather, was lit up from beneath. Shade admitted that they both “just sat there absolutely amazed”. The men estimated it to be some fifty feet in diameter. Abruptly, the object “swooped” towards them. It was at that point MP Shade made the decision to act.

The officers made “like hell” back to the main guard building. Reaching speeds of nearly one–hundred miles an hour, the vehicle was shadowed by the UFO so closely that Shade had trouble seeing through the windshield due to the whirling maelstrom of colored lights above them. Both men would report that the object, if any closer, would have potentially contacted the top of the car. Ultimately, before making it to the guardhouse, Shade lost control of the vehicle and ran off the road into a grassy ditch. While the men attempted to remove their car from its resting place, the UFO hovered in front of them, but at a more comfortable distance. Eventually, it departed thereafter, “skimming off into the distance” as the MP’s regained some semblance of composure and drove to back to their station. In summing up their ordeal, Shade admitted that he had “…never believed in UFO’s in the past”. Burn’s likewise confessed the he was “terrified”, and that he had “crouched down under the dash–board” when the UFO stuck with them before they came off the road.

As the night progressed, the MP’s would make an official “Military Police Report” back at the Provost Marshall’s office at Fort Stewart, and, seemingly, the Pentagon were notified. The Chief Public Information Officer for Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, Lt. David Anderson, saw that immediate checks were made regarding local aircraft movements and radar coverage, but no one could shed any light on the UFO inicdent. Local law enforcement officials with Chatham County were likewise notified, and, as it turned out, they too had had civilian reports of a low–level concentration of lights in the area. In fact, one local press report would quote that police officers explicitly witnessed the “UFO dive” at Hunter during a surveillance operation. If correct, this would mean that MP Shade and MP Burns had off–site witnesses to their close encounter. Barely twenty–four hours later, MP Burns would have a second sighting, but this time he was with an MP Murray, who was also with the 298th MP Company. At 430am, on the 9 Sep 1973, the two MP’s were patrolling the Hunter runway when they observed what they “first believed to be the red light of an aircraft some distance away”. Moving off quite rapidly, the light “disappeared into the woods”. This, of course, is hardly a noteworthy sighting, but it appears in official report paperwork, so it needs to be mentioned.

Amazingly, the main Hunter Army Airfield UFO encounter was in the local press almost immediately. Some newspaper articles correctly referenced MP Burns and MP Shade as witnesses, and even managed to glean statements directly from them, and other Hunter personnel. Often, military–sourced UFO reports take weeks or months to be picked up, if at all. Moreover, easy access to military personnel regarding UFO sightings is seldom given to pesky journalists. As noted, the UFO encounter occurred in the early hours of the 8th of September, 1973. Impressively, The Savannah Morning News ran a two–page story, just a day later, on the 9th of September. (See below - click on image[s] to enlarge).

Wreck at Hunter Field - The Savannah Morning News 9-9-1973

Wreck at Hunter Field (-cont) - The Savannah Morning News 9-9-1973

Tuesday, March 06, 2018

Department of Defense UFO Program, Luis Elizondo and The Chain of Custody

Bookmark and Share

Clearance Request - DD Form 1910

Luis Elizondo, The Defence Office of Prepublication
and Security Review, and a "DD Form 1910" Chain of Custody

Part 1

     In the last few months a formal, hitherto unknown US Department of Defence (DOD) program to study the UFO phenomena has been revealed. Located within the massive Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), began in 2007, and was dissolved in 2012. Beyond that, and yet to be formally admitted, the work of ATTIP was apparently migrated to an new interagency partnership where it is still ongoing today. The AATIP effort, for most of its existence, was headed by DOD staffer, Luis Elizondo, whose career has been spent in specialised defence intelligence, counter–intelligence and security roles. Since his departure, last year, from the DOD, Elizondo has appeared in numerous media interviews
Paul Dean
By Paul Dean
ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com
3-3-18
regarding the AATIP program, but avoids detailing specific security classified information. Acres and acres of discussion about the AATIP issue has, unsurprisingly, taken place on social media and in the press. I do not aim here to further highlight what has already been revealed, or what hasn’t. My intention, as always, is to provide primary documentation, or other solidly sourced narrative.

On top of AATIP’s sudden exposure, two segments of airborne video footage were released that purport to show unidentified, airborne objects. The first piece of footage, and its wider story, was already known to researchers, and is generally referred to as the “Nimitz” or “Tic Tac” UFO case. The second piece of footage, which was entirely new, is known as the “Gimbal” event. The former occurred in 2004 off the coast of California, and involved multiple F/A–18 Super Hornets assigned to the USS Nimitz. The latter occurred in 2015 off the coast of Florida, and involved similar aircraft. Again, my aim is not to go over, ad nauseum, these two events, or their associated video footage. Others have done so, and work is ongoing.

One question that has arisen about these two videos, though, is the issue of DOD endorsement and formal release. Elizondo, and others, such as reporter Leslie Kean, have claimed that defence authorities formally permitted the open presentation of the material, and that a documented “chain of custody” was in existence. Again, it should be noted that the “Nimitz”, or “Tic Tac”, footage was already known, as it had been leaked to an online source, by USN personnel, quite a few years ago. Also, the newer “Gimbal” footage, as I have discovered, was also leaked by USN personnel, though not to an online server for all to see. Informal, isolated leaks aside, Elizondo understandably wished to see that these segments of unusual footage were as properly accounted for as possible, as did those he has confided in. Working with a number of interested parties, either directly or indirectly, which have included an unusual outfit known as the “To The Stars Academy” (TTSA), plus The New York Times, Bigelow Aerospace, and others, Elizondo has not, as yet, demonstrated exactly how he had the videos were declassified or otherwise released. Researchers, and the wider public, have yet to see copies of any “chain of custody” documentation.

Early on, I had assumed that Elizondo had utilised the US Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) to see that the videos were released, but my rather forceful enquiries with the DIA and Office of the Secretary of Defence and Joint Staff (OSD/JS) had demonstrated that this was probably not the case. Likewise, I engaged in lengthy telephone correspondence with staffers at the Assistant to the Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs (ATSD/PA), but they couldn’t shed any light on the matter either. Upon talking to someone heavily involved in this affair, I was able to recently learn that Elizondo had used an internal DOD records–release channel unrelated to the FOI Act. My confidant wasn’t entirely comfortable with telling me exactly what this method was without consulting with Elizondo himself, and I didn’t further push the matter. Put simply, I didn’t know how the videos were formally released, but that has now changed.

On the 25th of February, 2018, Elizondo was interviewed by reporter George Knapp for the radio podcast show “Coast to Coast”. In that presentation, Elizondo revealed that he used the services of the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR). In conjunction with that effort, Elizondo said he utilised a pair of DOD publications which govern the clearance and release of certain information to the public. Importantly, Elizondo stated that the actual document he used was a “DD Form 1910”.

Specifically, DOPSR is an office which resides within the Office of the Secretary of Defence (OSD) and is “responsible for managing the Department of Defense security review program, reviewing written materials both for public and controlled release”. They coordinate “official work products with Defense enterprise stakeholders to ensure that information being released is both accurate and represents the Department’s official position”. The two publications at the center of Elizondo’s video release efforts are “DOD Directive 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release”, which was certified as current on the 22nd of August, 2015, and “DOD Instruction 5230.29, Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public Release”, which was promulgated on August the 6th, 1999. As mentioned, the form Elizdono apparently used was a DOPSR–issued “DD Form 1910”. Its title is “Clearance Request for Public Release of Department of Defense Information”. Completed forms are submitted to the Chief of DOPSR, and a copy is sent for coordination with to the DOD’s Director for Freedom of Information and Security Review (DFOISR). Copies of whatever material, be it documents or audio–visual material, that the applicant wants released are submitted with the “DD Form 1910”, and processing can take weeks or months. A sample copy of the form, which is two sided, is imaged above top and below.

Clearance Request - DD Form 1910 Clearance Request - DD Form 1910 (Pg 2)

The DOPSR “DD Form 1910” is self–explanatory, for the most part. There are fields, or blocks, for a names, a signature, a date, subject matter areas, prior co–ordination of the subject material, office address information, etc. However, I am not exactly sure, at this stage, what information would be placed in some of the fields.

On the 1st of March, 2018, I submitted an FOI request to the Office of the Secretary of Defence and Joint Staff (OSD/JS) for a copy of this record. Explicitly, I stated, in part:
“This is a request for information under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I am requesting a specific document which were recently processed by Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR). The document is a “DD Form 1910”. It was utilised by a former DoD employee, Luis Elizondo, to see that some audio–visual clips (airborne FLIR videos from US Navy aircraft) be formally released to the public for educational or publication use. Elizondo headed up, some years ago, the much–discussed Advanced Aviation/Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). When he resigned from the DoD, he wished to utilise various DOD audio–visual material as part of a wider, civilian program. Thus, he used a DD Form 1910. Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR), or associated agencies, must have a copy of the DD Form 1910 in question.”
I was immediately furnished with an automatic reply from the DOD’s FOI Office. In it, I was given an FOI case number, which was “18–F–0601”. On the 2nd of March, 2018, I was furnished with a more formal, if interim, response from the same office. DOD FOI Specialist Sean Porter enclosed a scanned letter from Stephanie L. Carr, who is the long–suffering Chief of the DOD’s FOI Office. In it, Carr states, in part:
“This is an interim response to your enclosed March 1, 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, a copy of which is attached for your convenience. We received your request on March 1, 2018, and assigned it case number 18–F–0601. We ask that you use this number when referring to your request.

Although we have already begun processing your request, we will not be able to respond within the FIOA’s 20–day statutory time period as there are unusual circumstances that impact our ability to quickly process your request. The FOIA defines unusual circumstances as (a) the need to search for and collect records from a facility geographically separated from this office; (b) the potential volume of records responsive to your request; and (c) the need for consultation with one of more other agencies or DoD components having a substantial interest in in either the determination or subject matter of the records. At least one, if not more, of these scenarios applies or would likely apply to your request. While this office handles FOIA requests for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff (JS), and other component offices, we don’t not actually hold their records and our office is not geographically located with these organizations. As we do not hold the records, until the required records searches are complete, we are unable to make a release determination.

Your request has been placed in our complex processing queue and is being worked based on the order in which the request was received. Our current administrative workload is approximately 2,246 open requests.”
This is a standard response, no matter what the FOI request entails. I have received the exact same letter on other occasions. While it is certainly true that the OSD/JS FOI desk is inundated with requests for DOD material, I would argue that my request shouldn’t be placed in the “complex processing queue”. After all, I am asking for a copy of just one document, so the statement about the “potential volume of records responsive to your request” is hogwash. Searching for it shouldn’t be an issue, as the record was only generated last year. Also, I have given the OSD/JS FOI desk a very likely filing location, which is, of course, the DOPSR office. The statement about the record potentially being at “a facility geographically separated from this office” could be argued on technicalities either way. Both the OSD/JS FOI desk and DOPSR are located in the Pentagon though. One issue that may cause some complexity is the potential need for “consultation with one of more other agencies or DoD components” which have a “substantial interest in in either the determination or subject matter of the records”, but even this is debatable. Whatever the situation, my hands are probably tied. Short of me ringing the OSD/JS and reminding them of their responsibilities under the FOI Act, which is something I have done with varying degrees of success in the past, we are going to have to wait. Stephanie L. Carr’s letter is imaged below.

FOIA Response To Paul Dean (Pg 1) 3-1-18 FOIA Response To Paul Dean (Pg 2) 3-1-18

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

UFO-Pentagon FOIA Request Delayed

UFOs: What Has the U.S. Government Been Hiding?

Billionaire Robert Bigelow's Decades-Long Obsession With UFOs

Navy F-18 'Gimbal UFO' Video Explained?

Post Pentagon’s UFO Research Program Revelations – Skeptics Regroup

Understanding the Science of UFOs and Space Time Metric Engineering | VIDEO

Secret UFO Program Recorded Encounters with Unknown Objects | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

UFO-Pentagon FOIA Request Delayed

BREAKING NEWS: The Pentagon’s Mysterious UFO Program Revealed | VIDEO

Ex-CIA Chief - Keep Studying UFOs

Herald Tribune Reporter, Billy Cox Queries CIA On Chase Brandon's Roswell UFO Claims

Luis Elizando Former Head of Secret Pentagon UFO Program Describes Five Categories of UFOs | INTERVIEW

While Waiting for the Next New York Times UFO Bomb to Drop

Navy Pilot, Who Chased A UFO, Says ‘We Should Take Them Seriously’

UFO Legacy: What Impact Will Revelation of Secret Government Program Have?

UFO Reports at Nuclear Missile Sites and The Pentagon UFO Program

Astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson Discusses The Pentagon UFO Program on Colbert | VIDEO

Ex-Military Official Details Pentagon's Secret UFO Hunt | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Pentagon's Secret UFO Search, Stanton Friedman Weighs In | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

What the New York Times UFO Report Actually Reveals

'Second' Navy Pilot Comes Forward Re UFO Encounter | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

'The Pentagon’s Newly Revealed UFO Research Program' – What a Week!

On the Trail of a Secret Pentagon U.F.O. Program

UFO-Pentagon Story Reflects Fundamental Problems

Pentagon UFO Study Examined UFO Activity at Nuclear Missile Sites Says Former U.S. Senator Harry Reid

UFO Study Focused on U.S. Military Encounters

PENTAGON UFO PROGRAM: 'Recovered Material' From UFOs Discussed By Leslie Kean | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Senator Reid Discusses Secret UFO Program | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Navy Pilot Recounts UFO Encounter | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Aliens, UFOs, Flying Discs and Sightings -- Oh My!

Secret Programs, U.S. Senators and Money, Who Wants to Talk UFOs Now?

Navy Pilot Talks: The UFO Jammed Their Radar — ‘It Accelerated Beyond Any Airplane We Have’

BREAKING NEWS: The Pentagon’s Mysterious UFO Program Revealed | VIDEO

Navy UFO Encounter: 'It Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’ – F/A-18F Pilot | VIDEO

Secret UFO Pentagon Program Explained By Leslie Kean | INTERVIEW – VIDEO

Secret Pentagon UFO Program Spent Millions

The Pentagon’s Secret Search for UFOs




REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE


Monday, December 04, 2017

Australian Aircrews Encounter UFO, Official Files Reveal

Bookmark and Share

Australian Aircrews Encounter UFO, Official Files Reveal

     There are currently two Australian government agencies who are equipped to, and indeed do, accept UFO reports from civil aviation flight crews. They are the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Airservices Australia (ASA). Of course, they do more than deal with infrequent UFO reports, and, in fact, are responsible for airspace management, the functionality of airports, pilot licensing, air safety, navigational systems, etc. Australia’s Department of Defence (DoD) also accepts and processes UFO reports, but their system is quite different from those of the ATSB and ASA. The DoD’s Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety (DDAAFS) accepts reported military UFO cases via a form called an “Air Safety
Paul Dean
By Paul Dean
ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com
11-28-17
Occurrence Report” (ASOR). ASOR’s are processed through the Defence Aviation Hazard Reporting and Tracking System (DAHRTS), and are studied within the Closed Loop Hazard/ASOR Review and Tracking System. DDAAFS military UFO reports have proven very hard to obtain. But ATSB and ASA reports have been somewhat easier. For the purpose of this piece, I will focus on ASA. Describing themselves as “…a government owned corporation providing safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible services to the aviation industry” ASA is responsible for national airspace management, air traffic control, aeronautical information services, aviation communication, radio beaconing, and the like. Some time ago I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for any UFO, or UFO–like, reports submitted to ASA by flight crews, with the date range of 2008 to 2015. I published the results of that effort in January, 2015, and my findings can be looked at here. Also, as an aside, I have also had the ATSB furnish me with numerous reports of aerial unknowns, and the results of that work can be found here.

In my previous FOI request to ASA, I stipulated they search their “Electronically Submitted Incident Report” (ESIR) database and the newer “Corporate Integrated Reporting and Risk Information System” (CIRRIS) for UFO events dating from 2008 onwards. Of course, one would assume, correctly as it turns out, that pilot–submitted UFO reports go back much further than that. The reason for me not asking for all material dating back to, say, the 1980’s, is because an FOI requestor can be knocked back if their request is to broad, or, will cause an unacceptable burden for administrative staff. So, one often breaks these requests for data up into smaller date range blocks. Needless to say, as soon as the last FOI request was furnished, I submitted another one. On the 30th of January, 2015 I submitted a new FOI request to ASA for all UFO or UFO–like cases dated between 1992 and 2008. Specifically, my request stated:
“….any incidences where flight crews have reported any: 1) Unusual, Unknown, or Unidentifiable Aircraft or Objects; 2) Suspected Drones/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; 3) Meteoric events, fireballs and the like; and, 4) Especially unusual weather phenomenon; which are held on the Electronically Submitted Incident Report (ESIR) database or the “Corporate Integrated Reporting and Risk Information System” (CIRRIS) database.”
On the 18th of February, 2015 Sasha Pesic, ASA’s Freedom of Information & Privacy Contact Officer/Legal Inquiries Coordinator, asked me if I would grant them an extension of time in searching their database(s) and preparing any found material, which, despite not being famous for my patience, I agreed to. On the 7 May, 2015, I received the results of my request. At one page, in PDF form, ASA supplied me with 3 UFO or related events in table form, which is imaged below.

One case stands out. In June, 1999 two airplanes experienced what, by anyone’s measure, must be considered a potentially important UFO event. In ASA’s “Executive Summary” column it is dryly stated:
“Pilots of AJP and AJK enroute for Alice Springs sighted an unidentified green object in their vicinity. No details of any other traffic held by Brisbane Sector 11.”
In the “Description” column it is stated:
“At 1015 the pilot of AJP Tindal for Alice Springs reported sighting a green object climbing and descending vertically and paralleling his track for some time. The pilot of AJK Darwin for Alice Springs reported sighting this green object as well. No details of any other traffic were held by Brisbane Sector 11.”
The document in question is imaged below.

ASA’s “Executive Summary” Pilot UFO Reports in July of 1999
- click and or right click on image(s) to enlarge -

While lacking further narrative, there is enough here to demonstrate that flights AJP and AJK saw something worth reporting, and the incident occurred at a significant altitude, as we shall see. Obviously, it is one thing for a single flight crew to report a UFO event. But when two flight crews report the same thing, the story is much hard to brush aside. If equal importance is the data which also comes with the report. The UTC Date/Time data is listed as “199906231015”, which is Coordinated Universal Time (the old Greenwich Mean Time), translates as the year 1999, on the 23erd of June, at 10:15am. As the event occurred while both aircraft were enroute to Alice Springs, flying from the north, this equates to 1945hrs in central Australia, or, 7:45pm. The event occurred in the “TOPS” airspace sector of Australia, which is a volume of airspace located in the Northern Territory (NT). The “Primary Occurrence Type” is listed as “MISCELLANEOUS”, with a further comment stating “(INC PILOT REPORT)”, which one presumes means the event included a pilot(s) report. The “Attribution” of the case is listed as “OTHER”. Finally, the “Report No” is listed as “2054”.

At that time the sky is quite dark, so, one may presume that any object that is be described as “green” was almost definitely luminous. As for the planes involved I have ascertained, through Australian aircraft registration records, that both were Westwind IAI 1124 business jets built by Israeli Aircraft Industries. These impressive aircraft carry two crew, and operate at a maximum speed of 865 kilometres per hour at 29,000 feet, but cruise at 725km/hr at 39–41,000 feet on long flights. Seeing as the Executive Summary states “Pilots of AJP and AJK enroute for Alice Springs...”, there is every chance that the aircraft were travelling at a fairly high velocity, and an altitude of over 29,000 feet.

Whatever the speed, wherever the exact locale, even the admittedly limited data presented in this single ASA document does raises some questions. Firstly, what “green object” can seemingly dip up and down vertically in the atmosphere, and then track with a jet “...for some time”? We can’t rule out another aircraft, but some of the details given make this rather unlikely. The mystery flight would need to be carrying a very singular bright green light aboard, which breaches civil aviation requirements. Also, one could speculate that the crew of either AJP and AJK would have attempted communication with other flights in the region, and if they did there was obviously no positive response. Most importantly, the “Description” section clearly states that “No details of any other traffic were held by Brisbane Sector 11.”. In Australia, the Brisbane Sector monitors and controls all air traffic in the TOPS area, so ASA’s Brisbane Sector effectively admitted that nothing else was flying in the area. Other explanations may fit, but the case is eighteen years old, so investigation is not easy. One could safely assume that the crew’s of the two aircraft in question have long moved on. Moreover, military records dedicated to, for example, ground–to–air missile evaluation launches are almost impossible to obtain, even through significant FOI work. Quite simply, the details of high–end ordinance tests are classified in Australia, as one would expect. Other solutions, including a gigantic period of meteoric activity, long–duration space re–entries, reflections on windscreens, intense hallucinations, rare electrical activity, etc can be ruled out. The astronomical angle is worth studying, but to conclusively blame a planet or star for “...climbing and descending vertically...”, then tracking one of the two flights, pushes the limits of credulity.

In regard to the release of this document, it is worth noting that ASA had a previous opportunity to make public the case. As I have detailed, my FOI request was finalised in Feburary, 2015. However, three years earlier, Australian researcher Keith Basterfield asked ASA for any information held regarding UFO’s, and the material I have presented in this report, which dates back to 1999, was not released. Specifically, on the 30th of May, 2012, Basterfield submitted an FOI request to ASA for:
“…any documents held by Air Services Australia, on the subject of ‘unidentified flying objects’.”
On the 18th of June, 2012, Keith was furnished with internal ASA material containing a number of media enquiries to ASA’s Public Affair’s desk, and a number of general enquiries from the public. Nothing of note was unearthed. Technically, of course, Basterfield had asked for records regarding “unidentified flying objects”, and the event I have highlighted was listed as an “unidentified green object”, with the “Primary Occurrence Type” listed as “MISCELLANEOUS”, and the “Attribution” listed as “OTHER”. These details do not contain the specific term ”unidentified flying objects”, which is what Basterfield had based his FOI request on, so the failure to release him anything of note probably boils down to a terminology issue. Usually, FOI staffers will do little more than process the request using exactly what a requestor has asked about, but surely a search of the ESIR and CIRRIS databases for the terms “unidentified” and “object” should have come up with the Alice Springs AJP and AJK event. Whatever the parameters, or limitations, of ASA record searching are, one can’t help but wonder if further requests, using a whole list of other keywords, would pick up. We may not have to wait long. I aim, very soon, to formulate a new FOI request to ASA. It will include a more robust and wider scope than anything I have done previously.

Monday, November 13, 2017

'Westall UFO Incident' UPDATE: High School Teacher Reveals Unexpected Information

Bookmark and Share

'Westall UFO Incident' UPDATE: High School Teacher Reveals Unexpected Information

     On the morning of April the 6th, 1966, the Australian city of Melbourne was visited by an unknown, or at least unfamiliar, object, or objects. The then-outer suburb of Westall was, apparently, a sort of “ground zero” for the aerial oddity(s), where it made an approach to the ground, or, actually landed. Much has been made of the Westall UFO incident, and here is not the place to rerun the generally accepted narrative. Others, be they documentary makers, journalists, authors or researchers, have produced many a treatment on the case already. At the core of the event, a large number of school children, from Westall High School, claim to have personally witnessed the airborne episode, and their modern-day
Paul Dean
By Paul Dean
ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com
11-10-17
testimony has been given a considerable quantity of recent exposure. One aspect of the incident which has been insufficiently explored is that of the staff who worked at the school. Other than science teacher Andrew Greenwood, we have heard very little, either then or now, from the teachers who were there on the day, and caught up in the unusual saga.

Recently, I have had an opportunity to exchange communications with a former English and Mathematics teacher who was staffed at Westall High School. A now successful author, Hazel Moir, now Hazel Edwards OAM, offers opinions which are quite different than the general version of high-UFOlogical narrative found elsewhere. Simply put, most (but certainly not all) of what I have personally read about Westall has been reactionary, or, has been presented in tabloid magazines, rushed newspaper articles, short soundbites and so-forth. In conversing with Hazel, I not only got to hear from a teacher, but got to formulate my own questions. In the interests of thoroughness, transparency and studying what happened that fateful April day, I present the content of my discussions with that Hazel. What I discovered was most unexpected.

After reading a late-August 2016 media story on the Westall UFO case, which mentioned Hazel, I contacted her via social media giant Facebook. These initial contacts were on the 25th of August, 2016. I introduced myself as a UFO case researcher who wished to obtain yet-unpublished testimony from persons directly involved with Westall. Following from that, there was no response, and I didn’t persue her further. On the 26th of October 2017, Hazel, who I have established was indeed an English and Mathamatics teacher at Westall High School, replied to my year-old message. Her first communication read:
“Dear Paul, I just found your query relating to UFOs and Westall. I’ve always maintained that there was no UFO landing at the school that day, where I was an English and Maths teacher. Two other former teachers agree with me. The most interesting development from the whole episode has been the community’s desire to have a common, significant memory. It was a new migrant community and the real story lies in the success which many of these former students have made of their lives. For just a few the supposed UFO was the only thing of significance, but others have created many worthwhile skills and projects. These are the facts, really: The supposed site of the landing where the UFO playground is now situated is so far from the back of the original school that students could not have reached it within the break. There was a hyped-up atmosphere that day, of the kind that sometimes occurs with students during very windy weather. Mr. Samblebee, the principal, did tend to be authoritarian, but had to retain order in a new and raw school, and was strict on the day. One student rang the TV station mid afternoon on a slow news day and things escalated from there. I’ve looked at the supposed witness accounts, and most are built on suppositions. e.g. Men in uniform appeared 45 minutes after and the army base is 45 minus away, therefore the army was involved. Not logical.”
Of course, with this, I was somewhat surprised by such a clear, lengthy piece of introductory testimony. With some ado, including the swapping of email addresses, a further appraisal of what I personally study within the UFO field, and a few early “vetting” enquiries, I drafted out several exploratory questions for her to answer as she saw fit. The first question I posed was merely, “What are your general recollections of that day’s events?” Hazel replied:
“During the class time that afternoon, the students were hyped up, but few actually reported real evidence of seeing anything. It was gossip built on hearsay. It was the girl student who called the TV news which set a media frenzy in place. Mr Samblebee the principal tried to quieten things down but he wasn’t trying to ‘cover up’ anything, just keep control in a fairly challenging school. Lots of inexperienced staff like me in our first year of teaching. The 19/20 year-old Science teacher Andrew was interviewed by media and really liked the experience, so stories grew. Because he was the science teacher, more attention was paid. In later follow ups of the story, I always stated the story was being exaggerated, but my comments were always edited because many felt that the UFO story gave them a connection to media fame. They wanted to be part of a story. Two other teachers Roger Adams and Vivienne Clarke agreed with me. A journalist asked me, ‘What did you do after this momentous event?’ I said I left at 4pm to go to my Monash Uni lecture on politics on the Clayton Campus as I was studying as well as working fulltime. He asked why I didn’t stay after school when such a momentous event had occurred. I replied that, ‘It didn’t’.

The flattened grass was part of the area where teenage students messed around between school and the migrant camp. The journalist from the Dandenong Journal agreed that he had reported what students and staff said, but he was cynical about ‘ the little green men’ which was the level the story reached very quickly. I did attend a reunion of Westall High decades later, to which I was invited, and several were being interviewed about the UFO on that afternoon. I thoroughly enjoyed my time teaching at Westall and put a lot of effort into my students. I was pleased to see how well some had done. But I was also intrigued by a few of those now adults who wanted the UFO story to be fact because it gave them kudos.

My belief is that the real story is the success of a migrant community and their desire for a common history and the reactions to the UFO story is part of that. I also attended the opening of the UFO playground (funded by Kingston Council and an excellent playground) where one of my former students asked me to keep quiet about my UFO qualms because she stated, ‘It’s my only chance to be famous and you’re not going to take that away from me.’ As a professional writer of fiction, I was asked by the documentary-maker, not to write about the subject as he wished to do so himself. I think it’s possible there was some type of flying object which went across the area, but it didn’t land.”
The second question I posed was, “When specifically did the alleged Flying Saucer incident come to your attention?” Hazel's reply was:
“Just after lunch. I had an English class who were fairly hyped up. Usually I had a good relationship with my students, but they couldn’t settle. Several were talking about something seen from the oval. Only later was the ‘Flying Saucer’ label used. In the afternoon break, the staff talked amongst themselves, but most comments were hearsay. Students had asked Andrew Greenwood the science teacher to have a look from the oval. I’m not sure if he actually saw anything but he was the one interviewed on the evening TV news.”
Importantly, at least to me, my third question was, “Can you what discussions did you have with other staff members?” Hazel replied:
“Until we saw the TV news coverage, Roger Adams and Vivienne Clarke (two other English teachers who agree with my view) dismissed the hype as something comparable to a windy day escalation of student wind-up. Since 1966, I’ve had several conversations with staff. Some support the view it was a UFO or maybe a military experimental flying object off course. A few claim to have seen ‘suits’ in the school after hours. We didn’t. Neither did we hear any American accents of supposed CIA/FBI undercover agents. The location is what I have the most qualms about. Where the current UFO playground is established is where it was supposed to have occurred. That is a LONG way from the back of the school oval of the secondary school. Students could not have got there and back at lunchtime, as they were supposed to be within the school grounds.”
The fourth question I asked was, “What discussions did you have with students?” In her reply, Hazel stated:
“Within the school, students discussed their part in the afternoon, but as the media stories grew, there was a kind of ‘repressed memory’ exercise, where some began to remember things they hadn’t mentioned earlier. One student did leave a month or so after this, and that fact was picked up by one correspondent who claimed she vanished. Not so. Genuine transfer to another school which happened a lot with a transitory migrant camp community as parents got better jobs elsewhere. We did attempt to discuss in class the need for evidence before you claim something.”
Following that I wanted to make sure any contact with Principle Samblebee was covered, so the fifth question I posed was, “Did you have any discussions with the principal about the events of that day?” Hazel's reply was:
“Mr Samblebee attempted to ‘dampen down’ discussion and wanted us to return to normal classes. Whenever the local media picked up on the story, there’d be a resurgence of interest within the school and the local Clayton/Westall community. The enthusiasm of the documentary maker Shane(?) (who was always polite in his exchanges) kept interest in the subject. He was not present at the supposed UFO incident, but his wife/girlfriend lived in the area.”
My sixth question, which aimed at potentially finding earlier interview accounts to study, was, “What interviews you have done over the years with anyone about the incident?” Hazel replied:
“Yes. The Dandenong Journal. I have had various researchers contact me across the years, but when I claim it probably wasn’t a UFO, my comments tend to be cut. The documentary maker was the most persistent interviewer. But the eventual documentary was comment on comment rather than facts.”
With that, I queried ‘which documentary maker’, to which Hazel gave a weblink and a brief reply. The weblink she gave was www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rlHgNDGvRE, and her statement was simply:
“Doco maker Shane ? (sorry forgotten his surname) very charming and polite man. Canberra based now.
My seventh question, was, “What you think happened that day?”
“Possibly there was some kind of flying object, viewed by a few people. I seriously doubt it was a UFO. The most interesting story is why a school and broader community want to believe it, and the speed at which a story can escalate. Much of the ancillary comment on social media about what might have happened was rarely substantiated by facts. It was on a slow news afternoon that a junior secondary student rang the TV news room. And then everybody wanted to be part of it. The real story is the subsequent sense of community created by this fiction. I’m in favour of scientific research. And posing hypotheses which then need to be proved. And of thinking outside conventional frameworks. But I need proof. Evidence. Not just opinion. And frankly the Westall UFO sighting being listed as fact, worries me. Makes me wonder about some other ‘facts’.”
Moving away from the incident itself, my eighth question was, “Have you any notes, diaries or other documentation from 1966 about the incident?” Hazel replied:
“I gave it a passing mention in my memoir ‘Not Just a Piece of Cake; Being an Author’ (Brolga). Frankly I didn’t take notes in 1966 because I didn’t think it that significant.”
I wrapped up this series of enquires with a ninth question, “Do you care if I publish any of this one day?” Hazel thankfully stated:
“You’re welcome to publish. Happy for you to use my name. Can’t find many photos from that era. But will email you the one I have.”
Thus, with a reasonably voluminous quantity of information to deliberate over, I thought wise to clarify some of Hazel's answers. In a more loosely arranged format, I came back to Hazel on the 27th of October, stating:“Hi Hazel. I’ve read through your answers, and these will be detailed enough for me present in some sort of report. I have a few follow-up questions. One that springs to mind is this: The girl who rang the TV station… How would this be done from inside (or outside?) a school? Surely she didn’t get permission?”

Hazel answered,
“No, I think she probably wagged it to ring outside early in afternoon.”
I then asked a question, which had already been somewhat covered, to help further nail down a footprint of previous interviews, “Other than the documentary maker, Shane Ryan, have you been interviewed by anyone in the last few years?” Hazel responded by stating:
“At the Westall High School reunion, there were several journalists but the major involved one was the ex-Dandenong Journal reporter because he’d been on the spot on the day. He was quite skeptical and regarded it as a news gathering assignment not a fact finding mission. He said his job on the original story was to collect quotes as it became a front page suburban story.

Later, one of the ex-Year 7/8 students of mine had become a police officer, and it was she who tracked me to invite me to the reunion as my name had changed from Moir to Edwards. She tracked me via my former car’s number plate (the car then held by my daughter). So I must have encouraged a few research skills amongst my students! I think there were a few Age stories at various times (usually around anniversary dates) but most of the interest was drummed up by Shane Ryan who had managed to raise some funding for the doco. On the reunion day, Shane Ryan filmed me in the school corridors, talking about the supposed UFO, but that footage was dropped. I’d suggest you look at the geography of where things were supposed to have occurred. The Grange with the tall trees, was a LONG way from the actual school.”
With that, I asked, “So… the original Dandenong Journal reporter back on the reunion: Was he skeptical in 1966 or skeptical during the reunion? Or both?” Hazel stated:
“Both. I managed to ask him his views at the reunion. He didn’t say that on camera though.”
On the 1st of November, 2017, I thought it time to send Hazel two school-issue photographs from 1966. One photograph was of the Westall High School staff, and the other was of Hazel's class of 1966. Regarding the staff photograph, she offered this:
“Many thanks for the Westall photos. I recognise the staff. I’m in the middle row fourth from the left. The two other sceptical teachers were Vivienne Clarke (pale outfit alongside me) and Roger Adams was the guy on the right-hand end with the glasses.”
Concerning the class/student photograph, Hazel stated:
“In the student photo, the blonde girl in the second row from the top left-hand side was Cheryl and think she was involved in phoning the TV News.”
On the 2nd of November, 2017, I asked a new round of questions focusing on Science teacher Andrew Greenwood. I bundled my Greenwood enquires into a single passage of questioning, asking, “How well did you know Andrew Greenwood in 1966? Have you any recollections from those days about him? If so, what? Also, have you ever spoke about the event with him post 1966?” Her reply was:
“He was a fairly inexperienced, young science teacher and liked to be friendly with the students. I didn’t have any contact with him afterwards.”
From here, my interviews with Hazel Edwards OAM continue. Obviously, there are more questions to ask, more facts to yield. I am leaving others to decide what to make of this bevy of new information. I have made it a priority to have Hazel's statements published, here and now, for the purpose of demonstrating that written testimony from persons involved in a UFO case can be more valuable than anything else, and to encourage researchers to publish, with some haste, their research work. Finally, I am perusing now five other staff members, or at least their families, regarding the case.

Finally, regarding the other two teachers whom Hazel mentions, Roger Adams and Vivienne Clarke, quick search of the Westall Flying Saucer Incident Yahoo groups, turned up a message (Number 634) dated the 30th of April 2006, from Shane Ryan to the group, which read as follows:
“Dear list members, Another Westall High School teacher, Ms Hazel Moir (now Edwards), has told me she remembers one of her students, named Cheryl, talking to the TV news crew that day, in a very excited way. I wonder if anyone else has a memory of a student called Cheryl, talking to Channel Nine?

Hazel’s take on the story is that it was an insignificant thing that has snowballed over the years! I wonder? She remembers the commotion, teachers going to look and seeing nothing, and nothing more being thought of it by the staff.

Yet another teacher, Mr Roger Adams, has also given me a very similar account to Hazel’s. Like, Hazel, he said, they weren’t the type of teachers/people to believe such a story. He remembers Andrew Greenwood’s story, but doesn’t remember there being much support for it.”