# Machine transcript: DOW-UAP-PR160, Presentation by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, 1952

> **Machine-generated transcript with time codes.** Produced by automatic speech recognition (Deepgram nova-3) from the official recording DOW-UAP-PR160; 11,506 words, 1:05:13 h. It has not been corrected by hand and contains recognition errors, especially in names and technical terms. **The authoritative wording is the official transcript DOW-UAP-D154** published by the U.S. Department of War. Speaker numbers are an automatic separation of voices, not an identification of persons.

**[0:00:02]** · Speaker 1

This medium has been declassified in compliance with applicable executive order, statutes, and regulations.

**[0:00:42]** · Speaker 2

Pressing them with my voice straight at the microphone and my mouth separated from the microphone by a distance of about 15 inches. I expect that the speaker will put out approximately this volume. And I will now, as before, turn around slowly and address my words to the blackboard. This I'm now doing, talking straight into the blackboard as if I were drawing some diagrams. Diagrams. I'm then going to turn around slowly again now to face the audience. I am separated from the microphone by a somewhat greater distance as if I were slightly leaning backwards.

**[0:01:22]** · Speaker 3

Right around the zero, that's the desirable level. If, for example, we turn the gain down Now. Now. So you see it's just about wide open now to pick everything in the room up. See how it jumps in here? Now let's see if we play it back. I can't hear you.

**[0:01:58]** · Speaker 4

Is there anything already the tape now?

**[0:02:00]** · Speaker 3

Yeah. There's a there are a few things on the tape. Yeah. Why don't you say something? Why don't you start talking? I'm all embarrassed here. There's nothing to say. I can just. What? Hello? What? I couldn't hear.

**[0:02:16]** · Speaker 4

It began to appear in about 1947. You're possibly familiar with them, to a certain extent, following newspaper reports. The first ones were cited by Kenneth Arnold in June 1947 out in Idaho. Now I'll refer to them as these things because we have no idea what we're dealing with. The newspapers and and radio played them up to a great degree at that time and consequently introduced a little bit of probably a little bit of mass hysteria or something like that into the problem.

**[0:02:49]** · Speaker 4

They flared up for about oh, spasmodically for about two years, and then the things were died down to a certain extent. The Air Force took over this project soon after the first sighting because the public demanded an explanation of these objects. In '19 in August 1949, the Air Force came out with a a report, supposedly a final report on this, where they reached a few conclusions. Now they had some specialists in certain fields working on this problem. And you might be interested in knowing who they were.

**[0:03:27]** · Speaker 4

There's a doctor AJ Hiney, an astronomer at Ohio State, doctor G. Valley, the scientific advisory board, a doctor Fitz of the Aero Medical Lab, believe he was a psychologist, the RAIN Corporation Air Weather Service, Cambridge Field Station, and the US Department of Commerce Weather Bureau. All those people took the reports. I believe they had about 300 reports at that time. They took the reports and read them over, came up with their conclusions. All their conclusions varied to a certain extent. They all agreed that they didn't know exactly what they were. However, they were obviously no direct threat to The United States, so they didn't pay too much more attention to them. The Air Force came up with several conclusions in in that report. One of them was it was a mild case of warhead mass hysteria due to when we might say warners, the war just over. Some of them were

**[0:04:23]** · Speaker 5

due to

**[0:04:23]** · Speaker 4

psychopathical people or not something like that, trying to create excitement or get publicity or pure due to pure hoaxes. And the other one was that they were due to misinterpretation of conventional objects. Well, since that time, several years has passed, we've been able to go back and review these conclusions a little bit. We've been able to drop out all except the misinterpretation of conventional objects. Going going back, we have approximately 800 cases now on record, and only about two percent of those are actual hoaxes or psychopathological people who don't know what they see.

**[0:05:06]** · Speaker 4

The misinterpretation of known objects is still, of course, a large factor. That could possibly account for all of them. However, it's a little bit doubtful. We've gone through these reports and come up with the fact that about 20% are very good reports offered by very reliable people and there are just absolutely no conclusions can be drawn. The mass hysteria factor has gone out because the newspapers haven't played this up for the last approximately three years.

**[0:05:40]** · Speaker 4

There's occasional flurries, nothing to get excited about at all, and still reports continue to come in. We dropped this project in in 1949, as I said, as a special project, we're using this information as regular intelligence material since that time. We've decided here about last October, we decided there possibly was enough material now to reopen this case. So we the center appointed a permanent project engineer, I'm the project engineer, and we reviewed all this stuff. We took all the cases that we had, reworked them, filed them all in in a neat file so we could tell what we had.

**[0:06:24]** · Speaker 4

We went through and cross indexed all the material so we can get an idea of the of the different factors that were involved in these reports. We came up with some results. I won't say they're outstanding results. We don't know what the results mean. But, luckily, I didn't realize we're gonna have such a large audience here. So we didn't bring any slides along. I don't know whether any of you in the back room see this print. I'll pass it around, and you can get an idea. This is a plot of the sightings in The United States. Now this does not include the we have sightings outside The United States. We're not too worried about those at the present time. We're more interested in The United States. I'll explain this a little bit to you since you can't see it. We have certain areas in The United States where there are concentrations. In Dayton and Columbus, Ohio, there are concentrations.

**[0:07:17]** · Speaker 4

Now this is possibly due to two things. One of them is the fact that the people in that area knew that all the activity in this project was taking place in that area and consequently they were doing a little bit more reporting. Another thing is of all the experimental flying was being done around right field and we still have a lot of trouble with that. People call in and say I just saw a great big light go over 5,000 miles an hour. It turns over it's a turns out it's an airplane carrying a flare or something like that.

**[0:07:44]** · Speaker 4

So we disregard that concentration. However, around all the ports in The United States, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the coastal area around New York City, and New Orleans, there's concentrations. Around Los Alamos and the Albuquerque area, there's concentrations. Around White Sands, there's concentrations, and down here at Camp Wood, Texas. Now this Camp Wood, Texas concentration was due to an outbreak of odd lights about two years ago. They never did determine exactly what the lights were. They they were a special we might say a special type of report that haven't occurred again, and we haven't paid too much attention to that. But the ones around Oak Ridge and the ones around Albuquerque may possibly mean something. We don't know. The rest of the reports are pretty well scattered out around The United States.

**[0:08:37]** · Speaker 4

The if you plot these reports up by years, they started in the West Coast, up around in the Northwest around Washington, Oregon, Idaho in 1947. The next year, they were they tended to be on the East Coast to a certain extent. And from then on, they were just spread out all over The United States. There was no no pattern. We've plotted the frequency of these reports again. You'll see that it doesn't vary too much year from from year to year. This large peak down here people just and I think you can see it a little better. This large peak down here occurred right after the first sighting by this Arnold out in Idaho, And it was undoubtedly a lot of it was due to mass hysteria, people wanting to get their names in the paper. However, you can see it it tapered off and it reaches a peak right in see, this is June and July. And every year almost, it reached a peak in there.

**[0:09:34]** · Speaker 4

It's also peaked to a certain extent here in January, and then again, there's a peak here in December. Now there's actually no no direct pattern

**[0:09:43]** · Speaker 5

to that, but there's enough of

**[0:09:44]** · Speaker 4

a pattern that it plants a seed of doubt in your mind. You sort of wonder why this thing should run-in a cycle like that. In these two years, '47 and '48, there was a lot of newspaper publicity. However, in 4950, and '51, there was very little newspaper publicity. And the reports from 4950 '51 are mostly from military sources. The civilians have dropped out because, possibly, they didn't know how to report this stuff or they weren't interested in it. The air force came out and said that there was nothing to it, so they just quit making reports. However, military has continued to make reports. I should say military and and a few airlines pilots are covered in these two years. We've taken the reported shapes.

**[0:10:28]** · Speaker 4

We have a lot of questions. People say, well, what what are people reporting? So we've broken it down into shapes. In this segment here, there were no shapes reported. Somebody just called in and wrote a letter and said I saw something. So we've had to disregard it. This segment right here represents some type of of an astronomical body. I mean, you could say it was either a bright light in the sky or a a streak of light that could have been a meteor. We've lumped all those together. In this section, our discs are spherical shaped objects. We've lumped those together because it's we don't believe that people can tell if they're seeing a disc or a sphere unless they should happen to see it both in the bottom view and edgewise to determine it's a disc. So we've lumped those all together. Some of these could be balloons. I mean, there's no doubt about that. They could be weather balloons.

**[0:11:20]** · Speaker 4

However, due to or contrary to popular opinion, these things, are not are definitely not all balloons. These are shapes that just report as oval shapes. It's difficult to tell what they are. Miscellaneous is almost anything. Vapor trails probably actually were vapor trails of aircraft.

**[0:11:41]** · Speaker 4

There's one small segment in here, which is only six tenths of 1% of the all 800 reports, and that is reports of groups of lights going through the sky. Now we've had quite a bit of difficulty with those because the reports are usually from pretty good sources, and they'll see, oh, anywhere from six to 20 lights in a formation going streaking across the sky. Well, it's almost impossible that that would that you would find six meteors together. I I understand it's possible to see two of them together that would appear to be in formation, but no more than that. Certain percentage, 1% are reported to be balloons.

**[0:12:21]** · Speaker 4

Now these are balloons that we've not been able to establish the origin. In other words, we don't they're just balloons floating over The United States, they're probably meteorological balloons that have gotten loose from some station and have burst when they were supposed to. Two and a half percent resemble actual aircraft. We've had quite a bit of discussion as to whether or not these objects could possibly be some highly developed aircraft type that the Soviets have. We've almost been able to throw that out because a small percentage of reports that even mention any ship due to aircraft that would resemble aircraft.

**[0:13:00]** · Speaker 4

This percentage here are reported to be rockets or cigar shaped objects. Now once again, we've gone into that quite thoroughly and have found that, and it's common knowledge, that any bright light traveling through the air will burn an image in your eye and will you'll have some persistence there and it will appear to be elongated when actually it's just a round source of light. Well, that's some of the shapes that we've had. Now down in getting back to this disc spherical shaped objects, these things are are always silent. I mean, if if we wanna assume that this object we're dealing with is a disc shaped thing, these are always silent and they're usually highly maneuverable.

**[0:13:43]** · Speaker 4

Although lately, the reports that have been coming in have neglected to put this 90 degree turn business in. They just go over at at a great rate of speed. But the fact that they're silent is quite interesting because we, we have no knowledge of any type of power plant that would, that would be completely silent. Now these are the types of people that send in our reports. This segment here are civilians, and most of these reports came in when the project was first initiated back in 1947 and '48.

**[0:14:21]** · Speaker 4

This black segment here are reports from military sources, and they are we've put them in as just ground officers, not usually not flying officers or at least the reports are not made from the air. We have a small segment here of radar returns that we've been unable to explain. This section right here are reports from civilian pilots who were airborne at the time of the sighting. This segment in here, especially, is the one we're very interested in. There are reports from airline pilots, from tower operators, balloon observers.

**[0:14:58]** · Speaker 4

Now these balloon observers are normally people like the General Mills crews that launch these high altitude balloons. And here we have technically trained personnel such as scientists, engineers, and so forth. This segment, as I said, are the ones that we're very much interested in. Now airline pilots are we consider very reliable because they're very well, they don't like to stick their neck out and make one these reports unless they're absolutely sure they saw something. They received some very unfavorable publicity during this last rash of reports for the first time, I should say, in '47 and '48 and '80, absolutely refused to give us reports unless they're completely sold that they saw something.

**[0:15:41]** · Speaker 4

I've talked to quite a few of the pilots, and one of them made the statement that if he looked out his window and saw a v two rocket or something like that flying wingtip to wingtip with him over Spokane, he wouldn't tell anybody about it. I mean, he never reported to the Air Force because or to anybody because they just say it was crazy and probably grounding. So that's a big difficulty we have in getting reports from airline pilots. We do hear through the grapevine that they see an awful lot of odd things and that they don't report, especially over in the Near East, Iran, and Middle East, I should say, Palestine, Egypt, and those runs. Now we haven't been able to pin that down as fact.

**[0:16:22]** · Speaker 4

That's just a rumor that we've picked up in in talking to other airline pilots. We've heard other airline pilots say that, but we've never been able to pin it down. However, it would be very interesting to find out, and we're making attempts. Although, we've run up against a lot of trouble because they said the pilots just don't want publicity and they won't make those reports. This segment in here have been reported by air force pilots and their aerial sightings.

**[0:16:47]** · Speaker 4

A lot of these have been balloons. We've had a lot of trouble with the balloons in it. A pilot meeting a balloon in the air isn't familiar with what that balloon is going to do. I mean, he's familiar with meeting another airplane, and he's already made up his mind as to what the rate of closure should be and different things like that. He'll usually assume that when he meets a balloon that it's instead of a balloon, it's some object about 30 or 40 feet in diameter.

**[0:17:13]** · Speaker 4

And judging the rate of closure, he assumes it's going at a very terrific speed. But we've been able in some cases to actually show how that pilot was misled and that it was actually a balloon. However, we don't we don't try to say that everything was a balloon. In other words, if a a balloon was launched in the area, we we try to definitely pin that down. And we can get the time of launch of the balloon, the rate of ascent, the winds aloft, and we can plot out the path of that balloon and plot out the pilot's path and show by various lines of sight how he actually did see the balloon.

**[0:17:51]** · Speaker 4

In the past, it's been a practice to say, well, there was a balloon launched within a 100 miles. Consequently, the pilot must have seen a balloon. We don't want to try that because it's well, we just wanna have more proof before we say that it's a balloon. And the air force has gotten into a lot of trouble in the past by very loosely tying up these balloons with the sightings. We have some photographs of these objects that yeah.

**[0:18:20]** · Speaker 4

We we have quite a few photographs, I should say. A lot of them are definitely either hoaxes or else they're flaws in the negative. And the people that have found this print have looked at it and said, I took a picture of the sky and I didn't see this flying saucer, although here's a picture of it. And they'll send it in to us. It's not too difficult to examine the emulsion through a microscope and find out that that the image is due to a an imperfection in the negative.

**[0:18:48]** · Speaker 4

However, we have a few photographs that are very difficult to evaluate. This is one of them right here. It was taken in Phoenix, Arizona on the 07/07/1947. This has been hatched around quite a bit, and there's a little bit of doubt as to the whether or not this was purposely faked, but we've never been able to prove it. This picture is probably the most interesting one that we've ever received, mainly because we went into the background of this thing a lot more. This was taken in Lubbock, Texas last September. Now this Lubbock case is probably the most interesting one. The whole case is the most interesting one we've ever had. These five college professors from Texas Tech were sitting out in the backyard one evening, and I believe it was in August. It's August 25.

**[0:19:35]** · Speaker 4

They happened to be discussing meteors as they were sitting there looking up in the sky, and all of a sudden, this bunch of lights went over. And so one of them, they looked at each other and said, what was that? Nobody seemed to know. And so about a half an hour later, while they were still discussing the license, they said they wished that something like that would go over again, and it did. So for well, altogether, in a period of, I believe, was five or six nights, they observed 12 of these things that went over.

**[0:20:04]** · Speaker 4

Well, they assumed that it was some kind of a missile that the Air Force had been developing. And being nosy, they thought they'd find out what this well, they reached this conclusion after they saw the first two that they'd find out what these missiles were. So they set up their own measuring crude measuring systems. They were able to set up a or measure the angles on the on the houses and things in their backyard so they could tell, like, the angle this thing went through, and they timed it with a stopwatch. They also set up a baseline, 90 degrees to the path, and incidentally, these things always came over the same path in it roughly the same time every night, so they knew about what was going on.

**[0:20:46]** · Speaker 4

They set up this baseline and got each in with two way radios and some homemade, what you might call them, field lights or measuring, angle measuring devices and tried to get an altitude. Well, they were unsuccessful on that. However, they did get their angular measurement across the sky, and it came out to be 30 degrees per second. Now that's the only measurement we've got on these things. We didn't hear about it till about a month after it happened, and I went down and spent quite a bit of time with these people.

**[0:21:13]** · Speaker 4

At first, we thought it was just one big hoax, that they were just out to get some publicity. But on investigating these people and talking to them, we found out that there was a professor of I believe he's head of the physics department at Texas Tech, a gentleman who was head of the petroleum engineering department at Texas Tech, a gentleman who'd spent the last five years in Alaska studying the Aurora and a doctor of mathematics, and they had an astronomer who actually who didn't see these, although he was in on the investigation. Well, after they found out the Air Force was interested in it, they took an entirely different view. I mean, they found out that it wasn't one of our missiles, and they began to wonder what it was. But the thing had happened, and it was finished, they couldn't get any more information for us.

**[0:21:59]** · Speaker 4

Now these pictures well, incidentally, before that, they put a couple pieces in a local newspaper to try to determine who else had seen these things. And they put their names in the paper so that people could write to them and say, I saw it or I didn't see it. And they got a lot of publicity. Consequently, everybody in Lubbock, Texas was sitting up at night waiting for these things to go over. And a college freshman at Texas Tech had his camera ready when they went there one night. And this is the picture that he got. Now these are this is one formation that went over, and this is another formation. He his story is that he saw one go over, and all of a sudden, it dawned on him while he was trying to get a picture. He was a fairly good amateur photographer. He took these with a Kodak 35.

**[0:22:45]** · Speaker 4

He shot them a tenth of a second at three five on PLUS X film. He tracked them, and consequently, we don't know whether that this this blur is due to the movement of the object or the movement of his camera since he shot them in a tenth of a second. This is the first formation that went over, and this is the second formation. Now we've tried every way that we know of to prove that these pictures are a fake. I've talked to the kid, and in fact, I talked to him twice. We've had OSI talk to him about three times. And the final last time, they got him alone, and they said, now look. This we'll let you back out on this if you want to. We'll never tell anybody as far as the newspaper's concerned and everybody you've sold these pictures to. They're they're really good photos.

**[0:23:31]** · Speaker 4

But if you'll just confess to the OSI, why we'll drop it? But he said, no. He said, these are pictures of something that flew over Lubbock, Texas on well, this was these had to be taken on the August 31. He said, I don't know what they are, but he said, I I took the pictures, and that's all I know. And he signed a sworn statement for us, so he had to drop it right there. I mean, we've got no way to answer. No.

**[0:23:53]** · Speaker 6

Do this picture's checked with the observations of was filed?

**[0:23:57]** · Speaker 4

No, sir. I was gonna just mention that. The college professors say that these pictures are fake. I mean, they won't believe them at all. They say the things that they saw, they know were too dim to ever take a picture of. Now we cross checked with the kid on that, and he said well, he said that's right. He said after I took these pictures, he said I didn't develop them for two days because he said I just thought, my own mind, that that I wouldn't even have an image because they were what I saw was I thought, was too dim to take a picture of, but I just took a chance. So he he took those pictures. Or he finally developed them, and that's what he came out with. And he sold those I believe he got $8 for the original set of prints in from a newspaper.

**[0:24:38]** · Speaker 4

We had those prints over the photo. Haven't checked them out. I mean, they are an actual image. There's no doubt about that. He could have taken a black sheet of paper and just punched holes in it and faked them very easily, but he swears up and down he didn't do that. These things under a microscope show that that the relative position of these things vary just a little bit in each picture. Well, it's doubtful if he took a piece of cardboard and just punched holes in it. If he would be smart enough to vary the holes, the position of the hole in each exposure, he'd probably just taken four shots of the same thing and maybe moved his camera to give him a little appearance of motion there. But the actual exposures or images are moved just a little bit in each exposure. Now, again, that could come from the fact that maybe he tipped his paper as he took the picture, but we don't know.

**[0:25:39]** · Speaker 4

We've never been able to prove that they were they were fakes. The density on the negative compares to the density of a bright star. In other words, we used the same exposure in the same film and went out and took a couple pictures of some bright planets. And it's the density of the negative is just a little bit more than that of a bright planet at night. So that's all we know about it. We haven't been able

**[0:26:05]** · Speaker 6

to to get two sets of lights in some cases other than a cement?

**[0:26:09]** · Speaker 4

No, sir. We haven't. We asked him about that, and he said he took the pictures. It looked like a straight a straight line. He he didn't notice two different formations. Now I always hesitate to tell this because it could again be one big coincidence. But we if you plot those points on a piece of I mean, enlarge them on a piece of graph paper and plot them out exactly, you'll see that as the consecutive in a consecutive frames, one row of lights, the back row, we'll say, moves up to the first row. And then then it moves on ahead in in the third picture. Now that that doesn't make sense at all because the fact that there are two different formations he took.

**[0:26:50]** · Speaker 6

Are the spacing under the microscope the second row, the same as the first row, only different?

**[0:26:54]** · Speaker 4

Yes, sir. I I have the plot here. You've been interested in seeing a little later on. It's we haven't been able to reach any conclusions at all. Now the only there's only two possibilities that we can think of. And here here are the plots of those. Two possibilities that we can think of. One of them is that it's still one great big hoax that the college professors just decided to see how much they could fool the people in Lubbock, Texas, and they planted these pictures with the kid. The other thing is that there was it was known that there was a duck flight on in the area at that time, that the ducks were flying across Lubbock. We tried, and and the people in Lubbock tried to see whether or you could take a picture of ducks at night just from the reflection of the city lights, and that's impossible.

**[0:27:42]** · Speaker 4

So if these pictures are true, are not fakes, well, then it these pictures are not a duck. So who put it that way? The college professors won't believe the duck story at all. I mean, they say those were not ducks. We can if they were ducks, they'd have to be at such and such a height to give that 30 degrees per second if they were that low. The fact that I think it comes out to be about 75 to 80 feet. The ducks would have to be that low to be flying 60 miles an hour and go through that angle at that certain time, and they say they are not ducks. Now that's the only possibility we have or the only idea of what they could be. They might be ducks reflecting the city lights. Although it's it's still hard to believe that because just of all the circumstances, it just doesn't sound like ducks.

**[0:28:28]** · Speaker 4

A lot of people in out in Lubbock who are looking for these objects on these nights did see ducks. And when we were down there, they'd call us up and they'd say, I know what these lights are. They're ducks. Because I saw them and I could see the wings flapping and I could hear them honking and I could see their necks sticking out and you're wasting our good taxpayers money coming down here talking about it because they were ducks. Now but the once again, there's about half the people that saw these objects again said they were not ducks because they said, we've lived in Lubbock all our life, we've seen ducks for the last thirty years, and those were not ducks. So we're up against a blank wall on this this one case. Now we

**[0:29:12]** · Speaker 6

let's see.

**[0:29:18]** · Speaker 4

We've reached several general or I shouldn't say reached any conclusions. There's two or three general facts about all of the sightings, overall collection of sightings that we have. One of them is that on our good sightings there is absolutely no noise ever reported connected to these objects no matter how low they are. They may be reported as just being specks in the sky or down fairly low and there is absolutely no noise reported. And once again, we, we don't know of any kind of a propulsion system that would, that would do that.

**[0:29:51]** · Speaker 4

I mean, that we know of, has some type of noise connected with it. Another thing is we've had a lot of radar returns, but we have never had a visual sighting linked up with the radar return. We've had two or three reports of that, but we've never been able to pin them down enough and get enough facts about them to make sure that they were both looking at the same thing. They had a project on this down at Holland, and they've been very much interested in it because they've been seeing it compared on a comparative basis, more of these things around the Holland and White Sands area. They did track something down there with their synitheodolites.

**[0:30:30]** · Speaker 4

They don't know what it what it is, it it could possibly be a a slow moving daylight medium. Now I'm not an astronomer, but I understand such things exist. They they got pictures of it and they were able to track it. However, they saw about five well, I guess, five or six of these things at once. It was right after they launched a missile and they had their light scanning pointed up in the air and they saw these four or five things right behind a missile and they got the word to swing over on those and forget the missile.

**[0:31:00]** · Speaker 4

And they're a little bit doubtful as to whether or not all stations track the same object. So consequently, their readings are a little bit off, but they did come up with an altitude reading of about a 150,000 feet. The speed was very great. They came up with a speed of about 3,500 miles an hour, but again, they won't back that up because aren't sure of the conditions that these readings were made under. That's the only time we've ever come really close to getting any accurate data on these things.

**[0:31:32]** · Speaker 4

And I wanted to say again that it could be that it was a meteor in in the daytime. Now they have another type of phenomena or object or something floating around down that area, and that's these green fireballs. I don't know if you've been reading about that in the paper, but there's a doctor, Lincoln LaPaz, down in Albuquerque at University of New Mexico who's been making a big deal out of these green fireballs. They appear to be similar to a meteor, except that they have a definite flat trajectory. They're reported to be a a brilliant, greenish blue color, and they, they don't explode. I mean, they appear to be very low, about a third or a fourth the size of a full moon. And they're very low, and they just go out like that. They don't explode. Doctor. Lapaz's theory on this thing is that if it's a normal meteor, there should be a terrific explosion because of the size of these things.

**[0:32:28]** · Speaker 4

It indicates that they're down low in the atmosphere and there should be a terrific explosion when they go when they get down low enough to explode. It's but, again, we don't know what they are. I mean, they actually exist. There's no doubt about them. I mean, it's not anybody's imagination because they've been reported by well, doctor Lapaz himself has has seen one, and and we've had some very fine reports, and they all, follow the same path.

**[0:32:53]** · Speaker 4

There's a definite flat trajectory right across the, well, parallel to the Earth's surface. They they go out with no explosion, and they're brilliant bright, green. Airline pilots have seen them and maybe if they meet them head on or something like that, they'll rank the airliner up and just about toss everybody out of seats because they think they're gonna have a head on collision with this whatever it may be. Now Cambridge Labs have been working on that for two years and they came up with no conclusions whatsoever as to what there might be. So I understand that we are going to take it over again and see if we can possibly come up with some idea.

**[0:33:30]** · Speaker 4

We've talked to well, doctor Kaplan's or Lapaz's ideas that they come from Russia. But he said that they're using some kind of a self destruction missile that and they're they're zeroing in on Los Alamos. Now that's a good story. I mean, it it sounds really exciting, and and there's a possibility. I mean, it we can't say that it isn't because we don't know what it is. We've talked to doctor Kaplan quite a bit on his subject. Probably probably know him from the University of California. He thinks that they're either some kind of possibly a new meteor that we are not familiar with or some phenomena that's related to the aurora. He he claims that he can duplicate this color in his lab, and I I'm not sure of just exactly how he does it. I believe he uses oh, I don't know.

**[0:34:23]** · Speaker 4

I won't say it. I've got a report, but I don't wanna quote something I don't know about. But anyway, he can duplicate this color, and he believes that that's what it is. Now, as I say, that is a definite division of these things. I mean, they they definitely exist, and our problem is to find out really find out what they are. If there's some kind of phenomena, well, then we can turn it over to the astronomers and let them take it. If they should happen to come from Russia, well, then we better start finding out what they're trying to do on it.

**[0:34:50]** · Speaker 7

How many of these spring life reports do have?

**[0:34:53]** · Speaker 4

Oh, we have quite a few, sir. I'd hate to say. I mean, I I couldn't say exactly a number, but they started out, I believe, '49, didn't they, sir? Oh, there was a big outbreak of them in '49, and they seem to appear in in January or in December and January in that period between the years. And they coincide with a meteor shower that occurs that time. I don't believe I don't remember the name of it is. But for a long time, they tried to tie them in with that meteor shower. But just recently, now within the last year, they began to occur more on a over the whole year instead of coming at at at one time. OSI, Doctor. Lapaz worked for OSI in '49 on these and they tried to come up with a conclusion they couldn't.

**[0:35:42]** · Speaker 4

They've also spent a lot of time trying to find any fragments and have never successful. I mean, they've been able to triangulate these things and get a heck of a lot of reports on people who have seen them or seen one of them and then work their triangulation like they do on large meteors, but they've never been able to find any parts. They wanted suppliers to pick up put a dust collector on a b 29 and try to fly through the area right after these things occurred, try to pick up any dust that they might have left in the upper atmosphere, but they didn't find anything at all that would indicate that anything unusual was going on. So we were we're up against the stone wall on these things too. Mean, all we've got is just people's ideas.

**[0:36:23]** · Speaker 4

We've got no proof as to what they actually may be. Now we've one of our approaches on this thing is going to be the use of diffraction gratings on cameras. This is doctor Kaplan's idea. He says that we can and I mean, I should say he says, he knows that we can take a very inexpensive camera and put a diffraction grating on it, and give them to these guards around Sandia and White Sands and all these places where the guards are out doors twenty four hours a day. And every time they see something that's unusual, just point the camera at it and take a picture.

**[0:36:58]** · Speaker 4

Then he says that he can take the reading and match them up and either by known objects or match them up in his lab and tell us what the composition is of this object that's emitting this light. Now we haven't that's just strictly in the planning stage now. We haven't done very much except doctor Kaplan is now trying to figure out the cheapest camera that he can build for us and and the most rugged camera so these guards can throw it around and still, we'll get some decent pictures of these objects. Another thing that we've done is recently we briefed Air Defense Command on this whole project and have got their cooperation in with their radar scope cameras. As I mentioned before, we have had quite a few unknown radar returns.

**[0:37:45]** · Speaker 4

These things have the the Air Defense Command radars track objects going anywhere from a thousand up to about 3,500 miles an hour. We've never been able to determine, however, that these weren't weren't malfunctions in a radar set are due to some type of atmospheric phenomena. We've we've tried to get the weather charts, at the time or weather conditions at the time this phenomena has occurred and try to correlate that data and show that due to this certain type of weather condition that they had this type of return. Now we haven't had too much lucks luck on that angle, so now we're gonna try to get radar scope cameras and get pictures of this stuff, and then we'll know. And before, we've just had the radar observer's interpretation of what he saw in his scope.

**[0:38:33]** · Speaker 4

We think that with pictures, probably, we can do a little bit more of this. Another step further, and Adam, we haven't done anything on this except talk about it, and it may get into the point where we're we're going to do this, and that is try to put in a a long focal length camera, try to match this a local long focal length camera with the radar spinner. So the time whenever this radar operator gets a return, all he has to do is poke a button, and this camera will take a picture of the area of the sky that the radar spinner is pointing at. And in that, if we get that far, and if we get a bad funny return, we'll say, an unusual return on a scope, and if we get an image, no matter how big the image is on the photographic plate or on the film at the same time, well, then we can say that that this radar operator was actually picking up something. I mean, that would be a great help to us now because we don't know for sure if they're even picking anything up.

**[0:39:29]** · Speaker 4

But that's the next step, and it's still in the planning or even it's in the talking stage right now. That's about the main thing we're going to try to do as far as future plans is concerned. We wanna get try to get some concrete data to say that these things exist. Up to the present time, we we've got no real proof that anything even exists. The only thing we've got are reports from very reliable people that that do have a lot of details in them, but the details aren't the kind that we want.

**[0:40:00]** · Speaker 4

I mean, they don't give us enough data as to the possible performance or anything else that we might need on these objects. The official air force viewpoint is that we've got enough good reports from reliable people to be interested in this. We can't back up any of these books by Scully or Kehoe and say that we know that they're from Venus or that we know they're from Russia or that we even know they exist. I mean, there's a possibility that everything that's being reported is, some as a balloon or as a meteor or ducks or anything you can think of that somebody just saw them from an odd angle or an under odd lighting conditions and they looked like something else. But it's it's, at the present time, we have enough faith in these people who have been turning in the reports to say that we we don't exactly believe them.

**[0:40:51]** · Speaker 4

I we're gonna have to get more proof before we can can say that everything that's being seen is some known object just viewed under different circumstances. I could go on for a long time telling you about the good reports we've had. I'd say about 20% of the of the 800 or 900 reports that we now have just cannot be explained. I mean, you can't say that looks like a meter. You can't say that that that could be a balloon if there's a balloon in the area because it it just doesn't fly up. And most of these people who have made these reports are, well established airline pilots.

**[0:41:27]** · Speaker 6

I mean, old pilots who've had a

**[0:41:28]** · Speaker 4

lot of flying time. The people who released these General Mills balloons have seen something. The people at White Sands have seen very odd things. Doctor. LaPaz himself has seen a couple of things floating over the mountains down in New Mexico that he couldn't explain. We've got about 20% of our reports are like that. So we just we can't go up to them and say, now you can't this can't be your nuts. I mean, that that would be our only answer on those. You're just you just crazy, but you can't go up to anybody and tell them that. I mean, they're they're they've seen something and we don't know what it is.

**[0:42:05]** · Speaker 4

Now well, some of the big questions that enter our mind on this is one, the no sound business. If it actually exists and there's no there's some type of propulsion, but there's no sound, what could it possibly be? Another big question is, and it it's getting in the lines of psychology, why or how could a person, look up at night or in the dust, we'll say, or even in the daytime and and see some of these things that they report. Right along those lines, we had the same time these pictures were taken down Lubbock within two or three days that time. Two women were driving along in a car.

**[0:42:43]** · Speaker 4

And all of a sudden, they looked out over the Texas Plains, they saw this object that they described as being top shaped, like, it's old fashioned tops, you put a string around and pull. And it was silver, and it was hovering along over the prairie, and they drove up well, they approached it. As they approached it, why the thing began to take off like that? Well, now we checked on these women and found out that they were just as reliable as your wives or anybody else. I mean, they didn't have any reputation of being habitual liars or stretching stories or anything like that. They were just good old Texas farm wives were all they were. And we questioned them, but that's their story. I mean, they said that's what we saw. We don't know what it was. We're leaving up the air force to tell us what we saw.

**[0:43:28]** · Speaker 4

Well, thunder, we can't tell them. Once again, it it goes down back to the point, how much can people imagine? At the same time, these Lubbock pictures were taken. Oh, I, in fact, it's the same night, a guard and his wife from the Sandia Basin, Albuquerque, were sitting out in their backyard. And all of a sudden, they looked up and they saw this big dark shape go over. And they said that it was a it looked a lot like a flying wing type aircraft. And it was down about a 150 feet, it just scared the dickens out because it was so low. And they could see little exhaust flames on the back of the airplane. Well, we checked them again, and once again, we found out that they're just good normal people. I mean, the guy's been a guard at Sandia for a good number of years, so he's reliable to that extent.

**[0:44:17]** · Speaker 4

I mean, they they don't usually hire psychopathic cases to guard places like Sandia. And, just out of curiosity, we sent these pictures down to that guy. And the OSI showed them to him and he said, yeah, that's what I saw. But he said, it was, these little lights are the exhaust stacks that I saw. And, it happened on the same night that these pictures were taken, just about two hours before these people saw this thing at at Lubbock. So, I mean, it it it's probably a coincidence. But again, you can't say it's a coincidence. I mean, we can't get enough facts to ever pin it down, but it it's, one of those things that's that's just very interesting to work on. I mean, it'll drive you nuts after so long a time, but then we try to keep going on it. Well, that's about all that that I had. Believe

**[0:45:09]** · Speaker 7

performance stated you get out of radar return?

**[0:45:13]** · Speaker 4

It it varies. It varies quite a bit. Usually, speed. By high speed, I mean, anything over a thousand miles an hour. They for a while, we we thought we had it pinned down, or our radar people did, because the return always went over the station. It came in, went through the ground clutter, practically directly over the station, and went out the other side. Now they claimed that that that was an indication of something, I'm not sure, Interference with air station or something like that. But lately, we they haven't been doing that. I mean, now they'll come in to the into the range, and they'll maybe make it turn and go out. Now we had one interesting case from BlueStay Live.

**[0:45:53]** · Speaker 4

And this GCA operator was sitting there looking at his scope, all of a sudden, saw these two objects come in. They were coming in about four or 500 miles an hour. And at the same time, a c 47 was coming in. He was gonna land his 47. Well, he knows they were on a collision course, so he called the tower and said, tell those two unidentified airplanes they're on a collision course with this 47. So the tower just called and the the tower said there's no other airplanes out there. The radarman said, yes, there is. The tower just called in the blind and said, you two unidentified airplanes. You're on a collision course with a 47. Just they said that these two returns made a turn. Now once again, have we got coincidence or have we actually got something? See, I mean, it

**[0:46:36]** · Speaker 6

speak English.

**[0:46:39]** · Speaker 4

So that's about the only conclusion we can draw in the industry today. But that's some of the things we run into. I mean, we run into a lot of that kind of stuff, where we'll have a lot of small situations that all build up into a big one. And it might be just a coincidence. It might be we may put our imagination into it unconsciously, only we we try to keep away from them. We try to stay right and straight and narrow. I mean, we don't want to be influenced either way on this thing. They may be from Mars, but if they are, we don't wanna think they are. We don't wanna think they're all balloons. I mean, we try to stay right in the middle of the road. Now we had a real interesting one from New Jersey. Yeah. Around

**[0:47:24]** · Speaker 7

Sandy Hook and Monmouth.

**[0:47:25]** · Speaker 4

See, around Sandy Hook and Fort Monmouth here not too long ago. These pilots, the t 33, chased something. And just about ten minutes later, all our radar stations in that area began to pick these objects up going back and forth all over the skies, and we thought, boy, this is it. So we tore up there to find out why the story sounded real fine. These t thirty three pilots saw this great big dish shaped thing over there, and he took out after it, he couldn't catch it. And then the radar stations began to pick up these signals, and they were clocking speeds up to 3,500 miles an hour and everything else. Well, it turned out that the pilots had seen a a big balloon. It was larger than normal weather balloon. It had been launched in Fort Monmouth. And they were a little bit mixed up with their rate of closure and stuff like that, had seen a balloon.

**[0:48:10]** · Speaker 4

And the radar, crews, the first radar, crew had had picked up probably just an ordinary aircraft, but they were giving a demonstration to a bunch of colonels. And the operators got a little bit flustered on the whole thing, and they couldn't lock in this automatic tracking. So they assumed the thing must be going about 3,500 miles an hour. It turned out the reason they couldn't lock it in is they were just too excited and got a little bit fouled up in their procedures. And from then on, why they were picking up weather balloons with these radar reflectors hanging on and everything else, and and the students incidentally, it turned out they're mostly student radar operators picking this stuff up.

**[0:48:49]** · Speaker 4

The headquarters had called in and hadn't explained anything. They just said, get on your radioscopes and look for these mysterious objects floating around. Well, that's all it took for these kids because, well, they saw everything. Well, at first appeared to be a very good sighting just all broke down. We enough facts. Now maybe they'll all turn out to do that. But so far, we've got an awful lot of them that we can't even come close to explaining. I guess that's about all I had. If you got any questions, well, we'd be very happy to discuss any aspect of this whole thing with you folks.

**[0:49:21]** · Speaker 6

Have you seen your surfing in them?

**[0:49:23]** · Speaker 4

No, sir. I haven't.

**[0:49:24]** · Speaker 5

How about the

**[0:49:25]** · Speaker 7

thing you saw on the

**[0:49:26]** · Speaker 4

Oh, I yeah. I saw something one day. But it was I it was just a a large meteor, one of these green fireballs or something. It was I think it was one of these green fireballs, Texas. And but it it was that's all that I have ever seen.

**[0:49:44]** · Speaker 7

I I I may at the risk of repeating this sum up some of these points, One is lieutenant Ruppelt mentioned around 800 cases that we have in our files. We know that that's only a portion of the sightings that have been made. Those are the ones that have managed to be reported to some military base and then through channels get to us. You can read local newspapers almost anywhere in the country. And if you read them over a period of time, you'll find stories on these things that we have not heard of. We've even heard of them in military organizations that have not been reported because I think it's almost a case of the airline pilots. Who wonder if there isn't something peculiar. For example, I was talking to some people from psych the other day, and

**[0:50:39]** · Speaker 5

they were telling me about a

**[0:50:40]** · Speaker 7

radar bomb scoring run of a b 29 out at Saint Louis. And the they were following the b 29 into the initial point. The operator noticed this plane flying or an object at 48,000 feet. The 29 was at 25,000 feet. He immediately thought, well, that that's possible. I mean, double harmonics or something. And, anyway, he explained it away in his own mind. Well, then the blip started descending and on a collision course, and a quick check revealed that it was descending at a rate of something like a thousand miles an hour. I got a little more concerned and still thought, well, possibly, this is either in the radar or in the some atmospheric condition. But then when the thing broke off, made a turn, and then another turn, took the course and disappeared.

**[0:51:34]** · Speaker 7

They just don't know what it is. Well, we find on these radar sightings that you you just left pretty much outside. I mean, you can't really dig in. You haven't got anything because there's so many of them that can be explained as there's a possibility that it is something either in the atmosphere or in the set. We had one good one not too long ago, and one of our electronics people pulled out a textbook. And gee, there was a case written up in a textbook, exactly what had been reported to us. A hovering object made a rapid rate of ascent and then took off on a course. Well, such a thing has occurred apparently because of weather phenomena been reported and pretty thoroughly written up. So we find in that whole area of sightings, I mean, we're just left without any answers. One point that was not brought out is our relationship with Battelle.

**[0:52:37]** · Speaker 7

Oh, yes. I forgot to mention. Patel Memorial Institute. They're they're one of the contractors who do work for us. They're always fun. They became interested in this when we pointed out to them one day that here's an area in which we've had a lot of problems and we're looking for help. We don't know the answers. So one of the things that they hope to do for us is make available to us people who are specialists in various areas so if we get a case that calls for an astronomer, we can quickly get an astronomer to work on it. Another thing is possibly a clipping service that will bring in a mass of reports that we don't have. If any of them are worth following up, we can.

**[0:53:29]** · Speaker 7

But our problem is problem is seen is just getting facts. We we don't have enough facts to do anything other than explain that 80% of these roughly are known objects. Possibly. As a matter of fact, they're not 80% definitely proved, but say 60% definitely, I mean there's no question in our mind it was a plane or something else. These are rough figures. Say 20% that maybe. They could have been a plane, a balloon, or a meteor. And then there's that 20% like the green fireballs and the lights that we just do not have an answer for. Now one thing that people have suggested, well, how about a feasibility study? Well, you a feasibility of what? The unknown. Oh, we're stuck there.

**[0:54:24]** · Speaker 4

Colonel, have all the intelligence officers of air bases in

**[0:54:27]** · Speaker 5

The US been alerted on this? I need to report everything alert. Is is the military generally alerted?

**[0:54:34]** · Speaker 7

Yes. We we should have brought that out early. There there is a directive from headquarters USA that establishes a reporting procedure. Now we felt for a long time, like most directives, particularly if there's no activity on it, people forget about it. I mean, it gets stuck off in the file. We've also felt that it was not a very good one. It had a lot of weak points in it. We So prepared a new directive and in the meantime suggested that they go ahead and remind all of these people that there is a reporting procedure set up so that it would bring reports in. And the new directive has just recently been coordinated, I believe. Hasn't been It's

**[0:55:16]** · Speaker 4

going back to D of I right now.

**[0:55:17]** · Speaker 7

Yes. And it should be out. Now lieutenant Ruppelt, in getting around on these cases, of course, there's a lot of missionary work. I mean, it's when he hits a base, I mean, he briefs pretty thoroughly on our problem. The places he's hit, I'm sure, are well aware of how it's done. I'm equally sure there are number of these places that just don't know. They probably have the directives in the word.

**[0:55:40]** · Speaker 5

I 'm just thinking of my own case. I knew you folks were interested from this association of it, but no. Still any any efficient channel. I never heard

**[0:55:50]** · Speaker 7

that there

**[0:55:50]** · Speaker 4

was any interest.

**[0:55:51]** · Speaker 5

Right. About the ground observer call? They have a 100,000 people that they have been quite active now. Are they allowed to

**[0:56:00]** · Speaker 4

We they are to a certain extent, sir. We've we've talked about that quite a bit, and we don't know whether it's it's worth alerting those people. Now they're not now on a twenty four hour basis. They will they hope to get them on a twenty four hour basis soon, but, we don't know exactly how far to go. I mean, we're afraid maybe if we'd, alert that number of people, then then everybody in The United States would get excited again. That's the thing we're trying to, keep out of this thing as this excitement business. Now in two weeks, a week from this coming Friday, life is coming out with an with an article on these, objects. And we've been working closely with Life, and, they supposedly are going to print what we told them to. I hope they do. They're gonna put it on a factual basis.

**[0:56:46]** · Speaker 4

I mean, just about like this briefing. In other words, there may be something to it, but we don't know. And we feel that that report may tend to take the mysteriousness and hysteria out of the thing and just get people to give us a few reports. Yeah. Well, people with good common sense instead of all these nut letters that we get occasionally. Another thing, colonel Kirkland referred to this newspaper clipping service. We hope to get that started before this Life magazine article comes out and keep it going over, say, a period of a year and see how the peaks in the newspaper publicity, correspond with the peaks in this in the reports that we get. We we feel that after Life comes out, why then several other magazines will undoubtedly pick this stuff up. A true magazine is supposed to be coming out with an article, sometime within the next couple months. It will be slammed the other way.

**[0:57:40]** · Speaker 4

It's gonna be written by one of these science fiction writers, and, it should give us no end of trouble. We haven't been able to get through to, cooperate with us at all. I mean, I shouldn't say that. They probably would, but but their type of magazine, I mean, they sell a sensational items, and they don't, they wanna play it up. And then, I believe Look is also thinking about coming out with an article. So, magazines are gonna follow life, and we'll probably we'll run into a little bit of flack again on this thing.

**[0:58:11]** · Speaker 6

Is it is it unlikely that or the fact that the neolus magazines have facts or data, you would say, with horror just for the sake of being sensational?

**[0:58:21]** · Speaker 4

They Life magazine has a lot of information that we do not have on on different sightings. They have some very good sightings too. I mean, they've called in some pretty important people around The United States. They won't they are very hesitant to tell you who works for them as their consultants. But they have got some pretty good sightings and that we have never heard of, and they're gonna use those neurotic, although they have checked those with us.

**[0:58:49]** · Speaker 4

The two or three old standbys that everybody always plays up, such as this Mantel case down in Kentucky where this guy got killed chasing one of them, supposedly. No one up in Sioux Falls, South Dakota where the, f fifty one pilot fought with this thing for fifteen minutes. And a few of those that that are outstanding as far as the science fiction writers are concerned, life is gonna leave out. They're not gonna dig those up again and rehash them again.

**[0:59:16]** · Speaker 6

Was it ever established? What caused, mental step and disintegration?

**[0:59:22]** · Speaker 4

No. Well, they think, I mean, the official report is, and I I tend to believe it, is that he didn't have any oxygen at all. And he just climbed up till he passed out, and then the airplane went into a dive and just tore itself to pieces. I think that that probably what he was chasing is still open to discussion. It was either probably either Venus or one of these great big sky hook balloons that general Mills puts up because there was one lost in the area at the time, although they were never able to say where it was, except that it was either over Kentucky or Tennessee. That's all they've been able to pin down, and they think that that might have been it. But

**[0:59:59]** · Speaker 5

Is this still classified top secret?

**[1:00:01]** · Speaker 4

No, sir. It isn't. That's another

**[1:00:04]** · Speaker 7

coming out.

**[1:00:05]** · Speaker 4

No. We've we actually we carry this confidential, the overall project. We're trying to get it dropped down and restricted now because, life is gonna come out with a lot of material we've given them that is classified or was classified at one time. The only time this was classified top secret was right after he came out. We've been carrying this confidential. There are some aspects that we'll have to keep classified as secret or maybe higher when we start listing air defense radar stations, possible tie in with some of our latest developments and things like that. We'll have to keep that classified. But just or just the details of a sighting, we're gonna try to declassify to restrict it. Because we've had trouble in the past on that. Some newspaper will call up and say, big sighting up somewhere, and we'll say, yes.

**[1:00:58]** · Speaker 4

We've heard about it. And they'll say, what's the results? We'll say, well, we can't tell you about that. It's classified. So, immediately, they came out with a big story about the Air Force just picked up a spaceship somewhere, and they won't tell us about it. And, that's the thing we're trying to get away from. I mean, we don't wanna, excite anybody on the project.

**[1:01:14]** · Speaker 7

There is one other area that's classified, and that's where we have reports on people.

**[1:01:19]** · Speaker 4

Yes.

**[1:01:20]** · Speaker 7

You know, their background to try to determine whether they're reliable or not. We run into one interesting bit of discussion on this classification because there are some people who say, well now, these could be from Russia, which is true, it could be. Therefore, we are doing them a great service reporting them in our papers carefully. They can get plots, which is true. But we but we feel that the papers, I mean, when they get one, they're going to report it, and then they're going to come to us for what we know on it and it's inevitable if the papers pick it up.

**[1:02:01]** · Speaker 7

So that's one reason we like this reporting channel. It's established that if anybody signs one of them, it's not too illogical for somebody to see something in the air to call the nearest Air Force Base. I mean it's one of the first things they would think of. Maybe they've got something in the air. And we have found though, just as an example of this T-thirty three case you mentioned, The reporters were right on hand to discuss this thing with pilots when they landed and took pictures of them.

**[1:02:33]** · Speaker 4

We found out that in the New York area, some paper, I couldn't tell you which one it is, monitors VHF, monitors all the air traffic in the area. And I don't know why they do it, but they do. And that's the way they picked up that t 33 incident was monitoring the air traffic. Now I heard two different stories. One at the newspaper actually has a a a setup themselves to monitor. Another one that they have two or three hams in the area, alerted to call them if anything happens. But this t 33 pilot did call the tower and told them about it, and the newspapers are right, right there. So news we found out one thing, and that is the newspapers, surpass the air force in their intelligence channels. They're good. I mean, there's just no getting around.

**[1:03:23]** · Speaker 2

So we

**[1:03:29]** · Speaker 4

we can't buck them. We can't lick them join. That's about

**[1:03:33]** · Speaker 7

our Well policy. Actually, it goes a little further than that. I mean, it's a wonderful ally. I think the project has varied and is handling a lot just through difference in opinion or, you know, changes in opinion. There's been great interest in it, and then it would fall away, not too much interest, been great interest. And that's officially too as well as public. We feel that by going right down the line, taking every case we get, and trying to get additional facts, and encouraging anybody and everybody to give us information. There are lot of groups that are interested in this. There's a I don't know whether any of you read the Time article a few weeks ago on the Sussex. It was a group out on the West Coast that's in their spare time trying to get all of these cases if you can work on it.

**[1:04:24]** · Speaker 7

But we feel that that group, if we're quite frank with them, would be very cooperative and help us. I mean, we're not trying to hide anything. We're trying to get help. You do have a problem on how far you can go publicly, but I think possibly this Lifetime article will help

**[1:04:47]** · Speaker 5

if they if they publish what we expect.

**[1:04:51]** · Speaker 3

This

**[1:04:55]** · Speaker 1

medium has been declassified in compliance with applicable executive orders, statutes, and regulations.