Never-Before-Seen Australian Government UFO Policy -Pt3-

Some of you will be aware that in 1994 the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) official policy of accepting and investigating UFO sightings, or “Unusual Aerial Sightings” (UAS) as they called them, was massively downgraded to almost nothing at all. I knew there would be a paper trail (beyond what was already released years ago) which hadn’t been appraised before. In September, 2015, using the powerful Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, I submitted a detailed request to the Department of Defence (DoD) for any material that “went into” this policy downgrade. They issued me, at some cost, 42 pages of never-before-seen administrative records from that era. This is the third and final Part of this series. For those who wish to start from the beginning, have a look at Part 1 and Part 2.

By Paul Dean The UFO Chronicles 2-7-16

Beyond what I have highlighted previously, there are some more records that are of some interest. A 3 page “Message Form” dated 24th December, 1993 was sent to six “Air Indicator Groups” (AIG). An AIG is a list of preset destinations for internal message routing. This particular message was titled “Unusual Aerial Sightings: Revised Policy” and had a file reference 138/93/DGPP. DGPP stands for Director General of Plans and Policy. The author was Air Commodore S. T. James who was DGPP for the RAAF in 1993 and 1994. See below:

- click and or right click on image(s) to enlarge -

Another item which is of note is a reference copy of RAAF Headquarters document which forms a front cover sheet to the dry UAS Policy as it stood in 1984. Indeed, it was 1984 when the RAAF had last changed the policy when they made the decision to cease investigating any and all sighting submitted to them. Only sightings deemed of possible defence or security significance were to be studied. Anything less was simply logged, with a courtesy letter written to the witness. So, what did the 1984 policy look like when crammed into one page? Signed by Air Vice Marshal, J. W. Newman, who held the role of Deputy Chief of the Air Staff from 1984 to 1985, see this outline of the 1984 UAS Policy below:

- click and or right click on image(s) to enlarge -

I could continue providing textual transcription and imagery of this significant piece of Australian DoD history, but this series needs to be finalized, and anyone who wants to study the records provided to me merely needs to ask. It is absolutely worth other researchers having a look at this material. I have taken much away from these records, and, if nothing else, it proves that the RAAF can locate and prepare 20 year old records with what appeared to me to be relative ease. Also, in regards to the redactions of text found in this release, on the 17th of January, 2016, I appealed the DoD’s FOI decision makers and asked for the blacked-out text to be released in full. I expect an answer by February’s end.

Finally, one very last piece of history that I wish to share is a copy of the RAAF’s 6 page UAS Sightings Annex A, parts 1 and 2. Part 1 was the actual pro forma questionnaire for witnesses to fill out if they so wished; and Part 2 was the Unit Investigation form, which was a RAAF officer’s “investigation” working papers for any given case. These clean, blank forms are how they appeared in the 1980s and early 1990’s. See below.

- click and or right click on image(s) to enlarge -

VISIT PAUL'S SITE ►

See Also:

Never-Before-Seen Australian Government UFO Policy -Pt2-

Never-Before-Seen Australian Government UFO Policy

Impressive UFO Case File From The CIA

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 5)

John Callahan & The JAL-1628 UFO Encounter; FAA Credentials Finally Confirmed -pt2-

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Never-Before-Seen Australian Government UFO Policy -Pt2-

Tweet

In 1994, the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) policy of accepting and investigating UFO sightings, or “Unusual Aerial Sightings” (UAS) as they called them, was downgraded to virtually no policy at all. But, like all things in modern government, there had to be a paper trail. In September, 2015 I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Department of Defence (DOD) for any material that “went into” this policy downgrade, and I was recently provided with never-before-seen administrative records from that era. I have discussed some of these records in Part 1 of this series, which can be found here.

By Paul Dean The UFO Chronicles 1-29-16

In this Part 2 of the series, I aim to continue providing imagery and discussion regarding this important release of information. In Part 1, the main item I studied was Wing Commander (later Group Captain) Brett Biddington’s (ret) lengthy draft of background information and suggestions which would soon morph into the 1994 downgrade of their UAS policy. One surprise was the level of security classification on much of this material. I also emphasized that some of it remains classified, and has been redacted (blacked out) so it could be released to me.

So what of RAAF Biddington’s final draft for the Chief of Air Staff? At 7 pages long, it differs somewhat from the first draft that Biddington wrote. Firstly, it has a cover page as one may expect, and is somewhat more formal, as we shall see. Firstly, the front cover page has “COVERING SECRET” stamped squarely in place. The title states “BREIF FOR CAS” – “CAS” is the acronym for Chief of Air Staff. Below this is “UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS POLICY”. And in the bottom left, is the all-important “Brief prepared by WGCDR B. Biddington.” I have imaged this above.

The next page is has SECRET stamped at the top, as well as “Page 1 of 7” directly underneath. Below that is “DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE” and “(AIR FORCE OFFICE)”. A line of text referring to the existing UAS policy states “Ref: AF 84 3508 Pt l (14)” and is followed by a center-of-page heading “BRIEF FOR CAS” and “UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS – POLICY” underneath. The first sub-section is headed here, not surprisingly titled “BACKGROUND,” along with the remaining pages below:

- click and or right click on image(s) to enlarge

Now that I have presented the final copy of the massive policy change material that the Chief of Air Staff saw and approved, it is worth having a look at the differences between WGCDR Brett Biddington’s draft and the final product. The draft, which can be examined in my Part 1 of this series, is shorter in regards to page numbers. This is because the line spacing and text is more tightly packed. Also, the final product for the Chief of Air Staff came with a front cover. The level of detail that Biddington goes to in the two products is somewhat different, also. Most importantly for us is the text that discusses RAAF interest in Unusual Aerial Sightings, especially around what I believe to be discussion on re-entered space debris and new (at the time) long-range aerospace surveillance.

For example, in relation to an “extra-terrestrial threat” to Australia, the draft version states on Page 2:

I think that an extra-terrestrial threat to Australian security is not likely to develop without some foreknowledge from astronomical and other surveillance systems. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X The means by which such searches might be conducted are numerous and will vary with particular circumstances.

Compare that to the same topic in the final version, on Page 6:

Should unambiguous extra-terrestrial contact with earth occur (which may or may not be associated with UAS), however remote that possibility might be, levels of organisation well beyond the RAAF will be interested and involved. Should the RAAF be required respond, how we do so will be defined not by extant UAS policy but by instructions from Government. It follows that there is no valid reason for the RAAF to retain a formal interest in UAS.

In the draft version the redacted text is, I believe, most likely discussing long-range radar systems (and possibly other aerospace monitoring technologies) that were being evaluated or in initial stages of operation back in the early 1990’s. In the final version, the “extra-terrestrial threat” isn’t mentioned until Page 6. Also in the final version, there is an extra segment in the “RAAF Interest” sub-section which is worth an extra look and comprises lightly of material in the draft, as well as new discussion:

The enormous improvements in surveillance technologies in the past 20 years make it possible to predict when large items of space junk are likely to fall to earth and where they are likely to fall; this occurred with SKYLAB in 1983. Civil and military aviation communications in Australia are highly developed and initial indications that an aircraft is in difficulty are increasingly likely to come from within the system and not be dependent on external observation of flaming wreckage and falling debris. Witness observations of such events remain important but not from the UAS perspective.

Another difference between the two versions of this policy change material, although small, is the reference to the vanishing of pilot Frederick Valentich and logistical concerns. Paragraph 5, Page 2, of the draft version reads:

At a more mundane level, the UAS mechanism has provided information about missing and crashed aircraft. The disappearance of the pilot Valentich into Bass Straight (flying a Cessna) is a case in point.

Paragraph 8, Page 3, of the final version reads:

At a more mundane level, the UAS mechanism has provided information about missing and crashed aircraft.

I can’t see any meaning to this variance in content. The audience (the Chief of Air Staff), one presumes, expects rapid-fire information with minimum distractions. However, it will be of mild interest to those who have studied the Valentich disappearance. Speaking of the Chief of Air, an additional sentence found in the final version, which may have been tailored especially for him, can be found on Page 2 within the “Community Interest” sub-section:

Neither accusation has caused the RAAF serious embarrassment or concern.

Another difference between draft and final versions, which could be easily missed, is within the mention of probable downed space junk. The draft says:

The most recent example known to me occurred in the late 1970s/early 80s when a RAAF SQDLDR was dispatched at short notice to central Queensland..

The final version says:

The most recent example is thought to have occurred in the late 1970s/early 80s when a RAAF SQDLDR was dispatched at short notice to central Queensland.

See that? The passage of text “…example known to me occurred…” and “example is thought to have occurred” is subtly dissimilar. What meaning this has, keeping in mind the audience who was to review this material, is unknown to me. There are many other variances between WGCDR Brett Biddington’s draft policy review and the final product. Significant work would go into detail every single one. Even then, so little meaning can be attributed to many of them that attempting to do so scarcely seems worth the effort some twenty-two years later. In my next, and final, part of this series, I will discuss some of the other pages in the 42 page PDF that makes up this significant release by our Department of Defence.

Visit Paul's Blog ►

See Also:

Never-Before-Seen Australian Government UFO Policy

Impressive UFO Case File From The CIA

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 5)

John Callahan & The JAL-1628 UFO Encounter; FAA Credentials Finally Confirmed -pt2-

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Never-Before-Seen Australian Government UFO Policy

Tweet

By Paul Dean ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com 12-22-15

      After months of too’ing and fro’ing, I have successfully had the Australian Department of Defence (DOD) declassify and release never-before-seen UFO policy material, and a significant fraction of it is very interesting, to say the least.

But, first, I would like to do what researcher Bill Chalker calls “due diligence” and clarify a few things… Way back in 1984, The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) downgraded its investigative responsibilities in regards to UFO sightings. No longer did the RAAF’s Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI) base-level officers have to investigate all UFO sightings submitted by the general public. This wasn’t a huge blow, as RAAF officers were not compelled or trained to investigate properly anyway. However, continuing RAAF policy stated that any UFO sighting, or “Unusual Aerial Sighting” (UAS), which appeared to show a defence or security threat would still be investigated. A Department of Defence press release on 2nd May, 1984 stated, in part:

The RAAF in future will investigate fully only those Unusual Aerial Sightings (UAS) which suggest a defence or national security implication. The Minister for Defence, Mr Gordon Scholes, said today that while the RAAF would continue to be the first point of contact, UAS reports not considered to have a defence or security implication would not be further investigated.

Fast forward 10 years, to 1994, and the RAAF’s UAS Policy was downgraded further, to virtually nothing. “Enclosure 1 to Air Force file AF 84 3508 Pt 1 – RAAF POLICY: UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS” clearly laid out, once and for all, that the RAAF would not accept or investigate any reports of UFOs events. On January 4th, 1994, RAAF Wing Commander (later Group Captain) Brett Biddington stated, on behalf of the Chief of Staff, Air:

For many years the RAAF has been formally responsible for handling Unusual Aerial Sightings (UAS) at the official level. Consideration of the scientific record suggests that, whilst not all UAS have a ready explanation, there is no compelling reason for the RAAF to continue to devote resources to recording, investigating and attempting to explain UAS.

I have always wondered about this “scientific record”? Likewise, I have often been puzzled why more isn’t known about this period of dying RAAF involvement with UAS. In November, 2013 I asked RAAF officer Group Captain Brett Biddington (ret) about this interesting period. The results of that short interview can be seen on Keith Basterfield’s blog site here.

But what about an official paper trail? The DOD doesn’t conclude a policy without some sort of administrative action and tasking. There is always paperwork. On the 23erd September, 2015 I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for:

copies of any and all material that was created or used to draft this policy conclusion… …including any briefs; draft copies; memoranda; minutes of meetings; references to secondary material used in decision making processes; loose minutes; interagency correspondence; etc.

On the 21st of December, 2015, I received a 42 page PDF from the Defence FOI desk which certainly contains a never-before-seen administrative records from 1993 that helped formulate the RAAF’s shift away from any UFO investigation. The first item of interest is a facsimile transmission, dated 26th August, 1993, from Wg. Cdr. Brett Biddington at the Directorate of Air Force Policy, Intelligence, Russell Offices, Canberra to either Sqd. Ldr. Wright or Mr Barnett, RAAF Intelligence Office, Melbourne. The “SUBJECT” of the transmission is a handwritten note stating “Draft UAS Policy”. Immediately below is a section called “INSTRUCTIONS/MESSAGE”, under which this brief note is made:

Chris, Draft UAS policy + background info as discussed. Hope this helps as an interim measure. I sense no real problem exists in A block – minor changes only are expected, Regards….

Below is an image of this transmission:

Enclosed with this facsimile is Wg. Cdr. Biddington’s first, lengthy drafting of background information and suggestions which would soon morph into the minimalist 1994 UAS Policy. The first surprise is the security classification stamped top and bottom of every page. Traditionally, Australia’s Defence community assigned one of five levels of sensitivity to records: UNCLASSIFIED, CONFIDENTIAL, RESTRICTED, SECRET and TOP SECRET. The material presented here is stamped SECRET which is, despite what people think, actually very rare for Australian UFO records. And, as we shall see, some of this release still remains SECRET, or, rather, has been redacted, even now in 2015! Still, most of Wg. Cdr. Biddington’s efforts have been released. I will present each page, and focus on some quite notable highlights. It should be noted that each paragraph starts off with a letter indicating what security classification was assigned to that particular section. (U) indicates it is UNCLASSIFIED, (C) indicates CONFIDENTIAL, (R) indicates RESTRICTED and (S) indicates SECRET. Page 1 begins with a paragraph of administrative and clerical text, which gives way to a more interesting second paragraph, which was formally classified CONFIDENTIAL (see above top).

The next page of Brett Biddington’s draft material continues in this rather extraordinary manner:

How fascinating. A full four lines of text are redacted. I will look at what the contents of this hidden material may be in due course. Continuing on, paragraphs 5 and 6, which mention the vanishing of pilot Frederick Valentich, raises a curious point about a logistical benefits of official study of UAS.

Continuing on with the “Suggested Policy” section:

Finally, the last page of Brett Biddington’s draft contains the inevitable “Recommendation” section. Oddly, there may be a typing error here, as he numbers it “12” when it should be, judging by the numbering of paragraphs on the previous page, numbered “13”:

Note on the above last page there is also the listing of an annex titled “Current UAS policy, dated Arp 84” which of course refers to what was then the current UAS policy apparently in need of the complete overhaul that Biddington was prescribing. We’ve seen some of the 1984 UAS material, so I will discuss it only briefly, and further along. For now, what of the above material? The security classification level gave me degree of surprise, but I take the common sense angle: In any lengthy DOD publication, some paragraphs will be classified differently than others, and, indeed, the above material ranged from UNCLASSIFIED to SECRET. But, overall, the publication in its entirety has to be classified at the level of the highest classified paragraph. I have seen bulky US Air Force squadron histories classified SECRET merely because a few lines were classified at that level; but in reality the vast majority of the publication does not warrant this level of restriction. In the case of Brett Biddington’s draft UAS material, it is expected that any such Directorate of Air Force Policy, especially coming out of the Intelligence section, or “AFPOL3”, would have some sensitivities.

That is, if we still lived in 1993….

The redactions that we are interested in here were done under Section 47E of the FOI Act. In one section of the DOD’s final letter to me, it was stated that:

…disclosure of the information under section 47E would prejudice Defence’s ability to obtain similar information in the future and would compromise the ability of the RAAF to complete its mandated role, namely defending Australia and its national interests from the air.

Moreover, another paragraph stated, in regards to the person making the final decision about the documents being redacted:

GPCAPT Wallis is satisfied that the expected effect of disclosing to you material identified exempt under section 47E(d) could have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of Defence, in that once the information was made publically available it could divulge areas of capability interest.

So what do we think they may say under that black ink?

Take a look at parapgraph 4, which, again, states:

4. (S) In the past, responsibility for UAS has allowed X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X The most recent example known to me occurred in the late 1970s/early 80s when a RAAF SQDLDR was dispatched at short notice to central Queensland X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

This tells me that the RAAF has been able to use civilian UAS reporting to find, or attempt to find, manmade space junk that has re-entered and crash landed – something absolutely inevitable in a nation large as Australia. Various US Air Force collection memoranda and policy justifications have stated that downed space junk, especially of Soviet or otherwise Eastern Bloc origins are of considerable value. A November, 1961 USAF HQ Intelligence memoranda laid out that crashed space junk was considered “items of great technical intelligence interest” and that some of the duties of specialised intelligence teams were to “expeditiously retrieve downed Soviet Bloc equipment”. The text in our Biddington draft document mentions a RAAF officer having to dispatch to central Queensland, and I presume it is regarding one of the numerous instances when spherical cryogenic fuel containers came down there. There is a possibility the redacted text is referring to something more exciting, like an incident we have no idea about, or an especially large or technically noteworthy piece of space hardware.

A look again at another section of the document that has significant redaction:

7. (S) I think that an extra-terrestrial threat to Australian security is not likely to develop without some foreknowledge from astronomical and other surveillance systems. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X The means by which such searches might be conducted are numerous and will vary with particular circumstances.

I believe this may refer to Australia’s ability to engage in long-range surveillance – either simply atmospheric, or out into space. The RAAF’s Jindalee Over-the-Horizon Radar Network (JORN) was, at the time of this policy change, being developed and, interestingly, Brett Biddington was involved in the implementation of the huge JORN program. It is quite possible that the above redacted material relates to detection of unearthly craft, on the very off chance they should come! If not JORN, then maybe the blacked-out text refers to Australia’s use of US space tracking systems? Or novel height finding radars quietly in use by our armed forces?

So far, I have only had this FOI release in front of me for two days. I am continuing to study it, and, at 42 pages, there is much more yet here. In Part 2 of this series I will focus on the final copy of Brett Biddington’s material, and some other oddities in the release. This is a somewhat major piece of history – that is if you are interested in the official handling of the UFO issue by Australia’s government. Finally, I mentioned above that the draft document contained an annex titled “Current UAS policy, dated Arp 84”. To build or downsize a current policy, the official doing the work must have to hand that paperwork, and, though we have seen much of the earlier 1984 material before, I think it worth a quick look:

Visit Paul's Site ►

See Also:

Impressive UFO Case File From The CIA

NORAD and The UFO Smokescreen (Pt 5)

John Callahan & The JAL-1628 UFO Encounter; FAA Credentials Finally Confirmed -pt2-

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

'Unusual Aerial Sightings' Policy Cancellation? Not So Fast – Department of Defence

- click on image(s) to enlarge -

By Paul Dean ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com 8-15-15

     Up until two years ago, Australia’s Department of Defence (DOD) maintained one scant policy regarding UFO sightings, or, as they term it, “Unusual Aerial Sightings” (UAS). It was titled Defence Instructions (General) ADMIN 55-1, Unusual Aerial Sightings Policy and, with minor changes in 1996 and 2000, had existed as a Defence Instruction (General) since 1994. I found out, inadvertently through other UFO research, that this policy was cancelled in May, 2013. In January 2015, I initiated a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the DOD asking for all records that “went in to” cancelling this already near useless “policy”. I published two pieces on this sad and sorry matter in April and May. They can be seen here:

UFO Policy Cancelled By Royal Australian Air Force

UFO Policy Cancelled By Royal Australian Air Force (Pt-2)

But was this really the last hoorah? Aside from the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) “Contacts of Interest” (COI) – the term given to unknown or unresponsive radar tracks picked up by various radar surveillance units of the 41 Wing – there are seemingly no channels within the DOD, at least not that I have yet found, that accept UFO sightings, study them, respond to witnesses, compile data, formulate reports and the like. It really does seem that the cancellation of Defence Instructions (General) ADMIN 55-1, Unusual Aerial Sightings Policy was the final say. No more policy paperwork. Cancelled. Indefinitely.

Except, one thing. There is still a “policy” after all. In fact there is quite a few.

In the 58 pages of documentation I received when I asked for all records related to the 2013 cancellation, I noted two passages of text which alluded to a possible continuation of the old policy in the form of SOP’s at RAAF bases. In military jargon, SOP stands for “Standard Operating Procedure”. On the 8th of July, 2015, I submitted an FOI request to the DOD asking what became of this proposal. On the 10th of August, at surprisingly no cost, I received a series of documents which were responsive to my request.

The first “file” is title RAAF BASE AMBERLY STANDING INSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 05-01 DUTY MEMBER ANNEX E and at two pages contains a front cover, and a second page about the RAAF’s stance, at least at Amberley Air Force Base in Queensland, on reports or enquiries regarding “Unusual Aerial Sightings”. It is part of a larger “Standing Instruction” promulgated by the RAAF at the base. The text is extremely similar to the old, full Defence Instruction of the last two decades, and it states, in full:

ANNEXE TO

AMB SI(ADMIN) 05-01

UNUSUAL AERIAL SIGHTINGS

1. In past the RAAF was responsible for handling a1l queries for Unusual Aerial Sightings (UAS) at an official level until J996 when the function ceased to operate. Scientific records suggested there was no compelling reason for the RAAF to continue to devote resources to recording and investigating of UAS.

Responsibilities.

2. The ADF does not accept reports on UAS. If the DM receives a phone call for a sighting, they are to refer the caller to local police authorities. The ADF does not have an affiliation with any existing civil UFO organisations.

3. Some UAS relate to events that have a defence, security or public safety implication which include man-made debris falling from space or burning aircraft. If members of the community have witnessed an occurrence of this type they are to contact the police or the civilian aviation authorities. Any identified aerial activity which appears to have an obvious
defence implication, will be investigated.

Media Organisations.

4. There are occasions when media organisations will seek information regarding a sighting or policy issues UAS. The DM is to obtain the media contact numbers and inform the ABXO on XXXXXXXXX The ABXO may then have the DM contact Defence Public Relations on XXXXXXXXX and pass on the media contact information or ABXO will advise DM to stand-down on the issue.

(Above, top is an image of the above mentioned page).

The above nonsense is so similar to the previous statements of the last 20 years, it is hard to tell the difference now between any of them. The only sliver of information that interests me is the statement Any identified aerial activity which appears to have an obvious defence implication, will be investigated. I mean, what constitutes an “obvious defence implication” and who makes such calls? Even though they are talking about “identified” aerial activity, I will be still looking into this matter in due course. Also, as a matter of interest, I clarified that “ABXO”, mentioned in the final paragraph, is merely short for Air Base Executive Officer.

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

UFO Policy Cancelled By Royal Australian Air Force

UFO Policy Cancelled By Royal Australian Air Force (Pt-2)

Plenty More UFO-Related Governmental Material Can Be Found

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

The United States Air Force vs. the UFO Witnesses

Tweet

By Kevin Randle A Different Perspective 12-28-14

     As I was completing my last UFO book, I ran into a number of things that were somewhat disturbing. Some of those were the ongoing Air Force attitude that these things weren’t alien in nature, those who saw them were somehow deluded, and it was the Air Force mission to convince people that UFOs were an illusion. It didn’t matter to them how honest the witnesses might be, how carefully they had made their observations, or what their level of education or expertise might be. The Air Force mission was to stop the UFO reports. If they had to lie about it, misrepresent the situation, hide evidence or smear witnesses, that was all for the greater good… though they don’t seem to have an idea what that greater good might be.

I have pointed out time and again, including the posting that preceded this, the clash between the Major Donald Keyhoe, he of the original NICAP and the Air Force in their discussions about what had happened in Levelland, Texas, in 1957. The short version is that Keyhoe, in the national press said there were nine witnesses to the UFO and the Air Force countered with there were only three who saw the object. The Air Force files carried the names of more than three witnesses and I now believe they were splitting a fine hair. They were saying only three had reported a craft and Keyhoe was talking about nine who had seen something in the sky including a craft. As I have said, repeatedly, both were wrong. More than three saw the craft (more than three names were available in the Blue Book files) and there were more than nine witnesses scattered throughout the Texas panhandle around the Levelland area who saw something strange that night.

This can be taken a step further, as I learned in working on the book. The Air Force sent a single NCO to Levelland to investigate. It seems he spent the lion’s share of a day there and returned to file a report that suggested a variety of answers that really explained nothing. By way of contrast, just days later when a fellow named Reinhold Schmidt told Nebraska authorities that he had been taken onboard a craft, the official response was officers from two separate command structures. They spent quite a bit of time with Schmidt and his clearly invented tale.

You have to ask yourself, “Why?”

The answer is simple. Schmidt was quite obviously making it up, the physical evidence he claimed was motor oil of a type found in his car’s trunk, and the public relations benefit for the Air Force was clear. “Look at the nonsense we have to investigate wasting time, money and personnel resources.”

At the other end, they do nothing to call attention to Levelland, dispute Keyhoe even though they knew that he was right based on what was in their own files, but that didn’t matter. Smear Keyhoe as someone just in it of the money and who had no worry about what the truth might be. That sort of outlines the Air Force position because, when Levelland is examined in a dispassionate light, Keyhoe’s report was much closer to the truth than that of the Air Force.

This isn’t the only time that the Air Force went after Keyhoe. A scientist in Australia, Harry Turner, produced a report that suggested there was something extremely strange going on Down Under and he believed it to be alien in nature. In his report, he quoted Major Donald Keyhoe, who, in his book Aliens from Space, had suggested that he, Keyhoe, was working from official and classified documents not to mention discussions with those in high places who had some of the inside information. Keyhoe was drawing his conclusions on what he had seen and what he had learned from various officials and Turner was basing his report on many of the claims made by Keyhoe.

The Royal Australian Air Force queried their counterparts in the USAF, asking about Keyhoe and his claim of access to important but classified documents and his access to important and high-ranking officials in the US government. The USAF response was that Keyhoe didn’t have the access to classified information he claimed, the documents from which he quoted did not exist, and his access to these important people was limited. He had exaggerated the information for the financial gain of a successful book. Keyhoe and his information were not to be trusted. The RAAF, believing they had received the straight information from the USAF, rejected Turner’s report because of the negative comments about it and ignored, as best they could, UFO sightings reported inside Australia.

The truth was that Keyhoe had not been overly exaggerating and the documents he claimed he had seen or used as reference did exist saying much of what he said they did. While Keyhoe might have engaged in some hyperbole, or slanted his take toward his bias, the USAF did the same thing in their attempts to discredit him. It turns out that Keyhoe was closer to the truth than the Air Force was which is sad state of affairs but also tells us something about the climate of the time.

And finally, though I don’t mean to keep harping on the November 1957 sightings, these cases offer some of the most compelling evidence of Air Force duplicity and showed that when they couldn’t find anything else, they attacked the witnesses themselves. The James Stokes sighting is a case on point. Everyone around him suggested he was an engineer. Even his bosses in the Air Force at Alamogordo referred to him as an engineer. But the Air Force couldn’t find a college degree and labeled him as a mere technician. That Stokes worked as an engineer and was called that by others in the Air Force made no difference. In the press, the Air Force investigators made it clear that Stokes couldn’t be trusted because he had been disingenuous in describing himself, or, at least that was the situation according to the Air Force.

The point here is that we just can’t take anything for granted when we look at the UFO files created by the Air Force. We can see that they were less than candid, and while it might be said, based on what I’ve presented here that this was limited to 1957, the truth is there are other examples scattered throughout the files, up to and including the letter that Lieutenant Colonel Robert Hippler to the Condon Committee explaining what the Air Force expected for their half a million bucks. I’ve explored that in earlier posts here.

Or, to put a point on it, everything the Air Force claimed should be verified because we have found the errors in their files. Some of those errors were simple mistakes, some of them born of incompetence, and more than a few were lies designed to hide the truth.

Visit Kevin's Site . . .

See Also:

UFO sightings at White Sands Missile Range

Army Reports Huge UFO Hovering Over First Atomic Bomb Explosion Site | UFO CHRONICLE – 1957

'Huge Oval-Shaped' UFO Hovering Over A-Bomb Bunker at Trinity Site | UFO CHRONICLE – 1957

Motorists Were Terrified By 'Hovering UFO' Report Police | UFO CHRONICLE – 1957

Egg Shaped Objects [UFOs] Reported By Many Sections of State

Enormous, Egg-Shaped UFO Sighted Near Missile Testing Site | UFO CHRONICLE – 1957

Egg-Shaped UFO Kills Car Engines & Headlights | UFO CHRONICLE 11-4-1957

Huge UFO Scares West Texans | UFO CHRONICLE – 1957

Egg-Shaped UFO Stalls Cars On Highway | UFO CHRONICLE – 1957

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Royal Australian Air Force & UFOs; More Official Contradictions

Tweet

By Paul Dean The UFO Chronicles 12-10-14

“I’ve just been advised that the first POC for UFO/UAE sightings at Airservices Australia is the NOC Supervisor....”

- Squadron Leader Jodie Hatch, Royal Australian Air Force

      That’s weird. Firstly, myself, and others, have been repeatedly told, in official correspondence from both the Defence Department and Airservices Australia, that no one uses the term “UFO”. Secondly, no one in Defence or Aviation officialdom has ever mentioned the term “UAE”, despite repeated and reasonable enquiries into such terminology matters.

To further elaborate, on the 15th of July, 2013, I submitted a request for certain materials held by the Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety (DDAAFS) under the Freedom of Information Act. It appears, despite my paying of search fees, plus assurances from the RAAF’s Director of Coordination, Group Captain Barbara Courtney, that this request was not handled with due diligence; but that is a topic for a later blogpost. In the handling of that FOI request, Defence produced a large number of internal emails and documents, some of held under the banner of a so-called ‘corporate file’. On the 8th of April, 2014, I requested that file, ironically, under the FOI Act. Essentially, I was doing an FOI request for the file which contained some of the documents created during an FOI request! That request was successful, and I obtained dozens of pages of internal emails and other documents regarding my earlier request. One of the many emails that stood out is a 22nd July, 2013 email from one Squadron Leader Jodie Hatch to the Director of the Defence FOI Branch which stated:

“I’ve just been advised that the first POC for UFO/UAE sightings at Airservices Australia is the NOC Supervisor XXXXXXXX”

The actual email is imaged below:

That a RAAF Squadron Leader used the term “UFO/UAE” – whether it be in a Defence or Airservices Australia setting – is at complete odds with what I have been told in previous communications with both entities, as we shall see.

Firstly, in telephone correspondence on 12th April, 2013, I was told by an Airservices Australia’s public relations staffer that they do not have a specific terminology for UFO’s. Secondly, on the 6th of August, 2013, I sent a letter to the Chief of Air, RAAF, asking what “terms and terminology” for UFO’s were used to by Defence in any and all Defence settings. On the 15th of August, 2013 I received a letter from Group Captain Barbara Courtney, Director of Coordination, RAAF, on behalf of the Chief of Air (see my previous blog posts) The only term actually offered to me was the rather dry phrase “Violation of Controlled Airspace” – and that was only the term used in a technical setting when an unknown aircraft violated controlled airspace. In other words, Defence ignored my very reasonable questions.

So, now, in regards to the above internal Defence email, we have a situation where a RAAF Squadron Leader is using the term “UFO/UAE”, which of course brings into question, to put it mildly, what I had been officially told by both Defence and Airservices over a year ago. The term “UFO” is clearly “Unidentified Flying Object”. The term “UAE”, I assume, is something along the lines of “Unknown” or “Unusual” “Aerial Event”. Either way, what I have been told before about UFO terminology is shown to be complete nonsense.

Furthermore, note the sentence in the email says:

“…first POC for UFO/UAE sightings at Airservices Australia is the NOC Supervisor XXXXXXXX”

Hold on.. This is new.. “POC” stands for “Point of Contact” and the “NOC” is the “National Operations Center”. Up until now none of this was known to UFO researchers, despite clear and fair enquiries in the past The notion that the “NOC Supervisor” handles UFO events is of great interest to me and my cohorts have already started investigating this matter. As for the “UFO/UAE” terminology issue, I judged by the fact that Squadron Leader Jodie Hatch was discussing Airservices Australia in her email that the terms were indeed Airservices Australia’s. I sent the Airservices Legal branch a letter on the 16 September, 2014, containing a copy of the Defence email as well as an explanation of the situation. I asked a number of questions, including the obvious one:

“Does the term “UFO/UAE” stand for “Unidentified Flying Object/Unknown Aerial Events” or “Unidentified Flying Object/Unusual Aerial Events” ? The difference here is of course just one word: ‘Unknown’ or ‘Unusual’. I wish to learn which one is utilised.”

On the 8th of October, 2014, I received the following correspondence:

“Your inquiry regarding UFO/UAE sightings was forwarded to Corporate and Industry Affairs for coordination of a response. Please find attached response to each of your questions. Information was obtained from both our National Operations Centre and from our Safety, Environment and Assurance business group.”

Attached was a copy of my questions, in PDF form, and finally, I thought, we may have an answer. In the attachment was a copy of my original questions, with answers below each. The key question was answered as below:

“Q1. Does the term “UFO/UAE” stand for “Unidentified Flying Object/Unknown Aerial Events” or “Unidentified Flying Object/Unusual Aerial Events”? The difference here is of course just one word: ‘Unknown’ or ‘Unusual’. I wish to learn which one is utilised."

“Answer: Airservices does not have a formal definition.”

Thus, the entire matter is dismissed in one line. Taken at face value, this must mean that Squadron Leader Jodie Hatch was actually using internal Defence terminology in her email. I have written to the Melissa Davidson, Assistant Director, Freedom of Information, Ministerial and Executive Coordination and Communication Division to ask what, indeed, Defence was talking about in relation to “UFO/UAE” sightings. The fact that Defence has stated repeatedly, to me and other researchers, that they do not use the term “UFO”, one has to assume that someone, probably Defence, is not being entirely honest with us. This is not surprising. For seventy years we have been playing an endless game of hide-and-seek with authorities on this matter. And that game clearly continues today.

Visit Paul's Web-Site . . .

See Also:

Extraordinary UFO/UAP Sighting: Final Report

Extraordinary UFO-UAP Sighting and Beginning Of Investigations | AUSTRALIA

New OZ UFO X-Files Revealed by Australian Researcher, Paul Dean | VIDEO

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Getting Straight Answers [Re UFOs] From The Royal Australian Air Force - Pt 1

Tweet

By Paul Dean ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com 7-24-14

"Air Force does not monitor unidentified aircraft outside of its controlled airspace..."

–Group Captain Barbara Courtney, Director of Coordination, Royal Australian Air Force

      Indeed. This, and other misleading statements, formed the body of a 14th August, 2013 reply letter from the one Group Captain Barbara Courtney, Director of Coordination, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) to my very specific inquiries sent to the Office of the Chief of Air Force on 6th August, 2013, as we shall see.

Obtaining correct terms, terminology and references for any topic dealt with in officialdom is vital when forming requests for documented materials under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Already aware that there are a myriad of official terms, terminology and references used for UFO’s within other agencies the world over, I wanted to confirm what Australia’s Department of Defence (DoD), especially the RAAF, currently uses in different settings (be they air defence radar environments, pilot-controller radio communications, air safety incident databases, etc) before drafting a series of detailed and unambiguous FOI requests for documents held by our DoD. In a detailed letter to the Chief of Air, I outlined some current terms and references which are explicitly known to be officially used around the world for serious UFO events. For instance, air-and-space environment monitoring systems within United States Air Force Space Command’s (AFSPACOM) 50th Space Wing use the term “Uncorrelated Target” for any unknown or unusual bogey which may present itself above North America. In France, pilot’s – both military and civilian – use a phrase which translates as “Unregistered Traffic” or “Unknown Traffic”. Other examples abound. Thus, with this information laid out for the Chief of Air in my very reasonable letter to his Office, along with a series of even more reasonable questions, I believed that I was going to be furnished with direct and honest answers. Above is the actual reply letter I received.

I received this somewhat extraordinary correspondence on the 15th of August, 2013 from the above mentioned Director of Coordination, RAAF, on behalf of the Chief of Air. The first (very brief) paragraph stated:

"Air Force does not monitor unidentified aircraft outside of it’s controlled airspace outside of its controlled airspace nor does it monitor unidentified aircraft when airspace is deactivated. However, if an aircraft enters active controlled airspace without a clearance it is termed a ‘Violation of Controlled Airspace’. An Air Safety Occurrence Report is raised on each violation and forwarded to the Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety of filing.”

Thus, my detailed enquires are dismissed in three sentences.

Firstly, not once in my enquiry letter did I specifically ask about airspace. What I did ask about is terms, terminology and references for UFO events – be they unknown or unidentified aircraft, aircraft operating illegally, re-entry of space debris bodies, or anything else stranger still; and in all settings – pilot voice transmissions, training manuals for defence aviators, etc. So, with that firmly in mind, the only solid answer I received in the reply letter was the term ‘Violation of Controlled Airspace’. Are we to assume then that an Australian Army helicopter pilot would state to controllers: “What traffic do we have up here with us… I have a violation of controlled airspace flying with me on my port side!” The notion that a pilot would use a phrase such as ‘violation of controlled airspace’ to describe another aircraft is, of course, ludicrous. I have since found out, through dealings with three current members of the Australian Defence Forces (ADF) that a few terms would be used by personal, which include, predictably, ‘unknown’ and ‘unidentified aircraft’. Furthermore, I have since found out that the RAAF’s 41 Wing, one of four Wings that make up the Surveillance and Response Group, use the terms ‘Contact of Interest’ and ‘Critical Contact of Interest’. I have also seen the term ‘Uncooperative Target Infringement’ in an internal DoD email. So much for the Director of Coordination’s efforts to detail this information to me.

Secondly, and of somewhat more importance in a way, was the statement “Air Force does not monitor unidentified aircraft outside of it’s controlled airspace…”. The RAAF would be in a sorry state indeed if it didn’t monitor any unknown aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. The No. 1 Radar Surveillance Unit (1RSU), within 41 Wing, operates the Jinadalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) which has cost taxpayers a rather large sum of money if it is not used for the precise purpose it was developed for: peering down on massive swathes of land and sea, the vast majority of which is considered uncontrolled airspace. Obviously this is not the case, and I will be discussing JORN in future posts. More specifically, in regards to an actual example of the RAAF monitoring uncontrolled airspace for unidentified aircraft, take a following section of an RAAF Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) which raised an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) around Sydney in 2007 for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit:

C1252/07 REVIEW C1241/07
ADIZ ESTABLISHMENT FROM 0708292300 TO 0709101400
IN ADDITION TO THE AIRSPACE AND PROCEDURES DETAILED IN
AIP SUP H23/07 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ICAO ANNEX 15, APPENDIX 1, ENR
5 - NAVIGATION WARNINGS AND ANNEX 15, APPENDIX 4, INFORMATION TO BE
NOTIFIED BY AIRAC, THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE HAS ESTABLISHED AN
AIR DEFENCE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (ADIZ) WI 200NM RAD OF SYDNEY DME,
SURFACE TO FL600 (Not RAAF airspace and some not civil controlled airspace) FOR APEC 2007 ECONOMIC LEADERS WEEK (AELW). THE PROCEDURES FOR AIRCRAFT OPERATING WI AN ADIZ ARE DETAILED IN AIP ENR 1.12 - INTERCEPTION OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT….

So, here we see an example of the RAAF monitoring uncontrolled airspace, and it does not take a genius to realise that they would have been doing so to, amongst other things maybe, monitor unknown aircraft or suspiciously behaving aircraft during this time.

Thirdly, the reply letter sent to me also states “An Air Safety Occurrence Report is raised…” for airspace violations and is “forwarded to the Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety of filing.”. This is essentially correct, it seems, as I have confirmed the issue with two sources for which I am grateful. However, the term “Air Safety Occurrence Report” may be, in fact, actually known as an “Aviation Safety Occurrence Report”. The terms “air” and “aviation” are, of course, interchangeable, so, while me highlighting this matter here may seem pedantic, when one is attempting to gain information for future FOI Requests, every single detail counts. Requesting a document that does not technically exist is obviously not in the best interests of anyone.

The above examples of misrepresentation of facts by the RAAF is not evidence of a cover-up of any UFO activity which may be occurring in Australia’s airspace. It is, however, an example of fob-off and lethargy in dealing with a serious researcher who is asking very reasonable questions to the very people he pays to employ. Of course, there are the bewildering number of documented examples where outright lies have been dealt out by such agencies regarding the UFO matter; and not involving just civilian researchers. There has been around the globe, as many of you will know, a succession of Prime Ministers, Defence Ministers, Presidents, Chief’s of Air Staff, Commander-in-Chief’s of Unified or Joint Commands, Secretary’s of Defence or Intelligence, etc who have been deliberately misled and lied to by the few that know more about the UFO matter than they care to let on – and that’s putting it mildly. I will be, in future, documenting some such examples which have come directly from government archives. Knowing that such leaders and military top brass have been given the run-around does not bode well for anyone else attempting to obtain some honest answers. After all, if the great Winston Churchill was misled by the British Air Ministry during his Prime Ministership, as can be found in a ten page file at the Public Records Office in Kew, England, what chance does a civilian researcher have?

Continue Reading . . .

See Also:

UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

Researching The Australian Military/Government 'UFO Files' (Pt 1)

Researching The Australian Military/Government 'UFO Files' (Pt 2)

Near Collison with Plane & UFO – Report Released

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE