CUFON - UFO INFORMATION SERVICE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT DOCUMENT FILES
____________________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Headquarters Air Force Intelligence Service
Fort Velvor Virginia 22060
DAD 25 January 1983
Possible Unauthorized Release of Classified Material
INSA (MSgt Heldman)
DA
l. Per our telephone conversation today, I am forwarding Mr Robert Todd's
FOIA request along with the AFOSI message for determination as to
classification level. As you can see, Mr Todd retyped the message "for
easier reading." I have talked to AFOSI/DADF, Nadine Dulacki. According to
her, they did not release the message to Mr Todd nor does she know how it
came into his possession. Maj Kilikauskas (AFSAC/INOB, 664-4488) has looked
at the t( message and he feels that it is a fake for several reasons:
a. There never has been an office within AFSAC (or 7602nd) with the
symbol INS, INSR, or IT.
b. There has never been a "Cpt Grace" (or anyone with the surname
Grace) assigned to AFSAC.
c. The purported imagery interpretation done is outside AFSAC's and
AFOSI's mission. Further, AFSAC has no individuals who are photo
interpreters.
d. The term WNINTEL is spelled phonetically on each occurrence. OSI
should certainly be familiar with the correct spelling. Further, the
document is replete with grammatical errors, typing errors, and in
general, makes no sense.
3. The document is not in the standard, acepted format for classified
messages.
Neither Maj Kilikauskas nor Mr Nehlig (who has worked in AFSAC many years)
remember hearing of a "Project Aquarius." Further, Maj Kilikauskas had no
idea if the information purportedly supplied by this Capt Grace is, in fact,
classified at the Secret/WNINTEL level. He suggests that both NASA and
Coast and Geodetic Survey be contacted to see if they have an interest in
the message.
2. Finally, I have talked to Mr Earl Middaugh (AFOSI/IVOE, 767-5144). He
remembers a FOIA request that his office staffed which involved an AFOSI
message similar to this one. However, they were unable to identify it as
OSI originated. He thinks perhaps this might be the same message. I have
forwarded a copy of the Todd request to the AFOSI Freedom of Information
Office (Bob Walker, 767-5262). Upon receipt both Mr Walker and Mr Middaugh
will be better able to determine if this is a legitimate AFOSI document.
3. Until a determination is made, we will regard the document as
classified.
SUSAN COOKSEY 2 Atch
Documentation Management Branch l. Todd Request
2. Message, 2 cys (S/WNINTEL)
____________________________________________________________________________
#
CUFON - UFO INFORMATION SERVICE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Freedom of Information Act Document Files
___________________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE
Fort George G. Meade, Maryland 20755-6000
Serial: J9014C
15 APR 1986
This responds to your letter of 7 March 1986 in which you further
narrowed your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records
pertaining to Project Aquarius.
The document located in response to your request as stated in your
7 March letter has been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA
and has been found to be currently and properly classified in accordance
with Executive Order 12356. This document meets the criteria for
classification as set forth in subparagraphs 2, 4, and 8 of section l.3
and remains classified TOP SECRET as provided in section l.l of Executive
Order 12356. The document is classified because its disclosure could
reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the
national security. Because the document is currently and properly
classified, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the first exemption
of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. section 552(b)(l)).
In addition, this Agency is authorized by various statutes to
protect certain information concerning its activities. We have
determined that such information exists in this document. Accordingly,
those portions are also exempt from disclosure pursuant to the third
exemption of the FOIA which provides for the withholding of information
specifically protected from disclosure by statute. The specific statutes
applicable in this case are Title 18 U.S. Code 798; Title 50 U.S. Code
403(d)(3); and Section 6, Public Law 86-36 (50 U.S. Code 402 "note").
No portion of the information is reasonably segregable.
Since your request has been denied, you are hereby advised of this
Agency's appeal procedures.
Any person denied access to information may, within 45 days after
notification of the denial, file an appeal to the NSA/CSS Freedom of
Information Act Appeal Authority. The appeal shall be in writing
addressed to the NSA/CSS FOIA Appeal Authority, National Security Agency,
Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000. The appeal shall reference the
initial denial of access and shall contain, in sufficient detail and
particularity, the grounds upon which the requester believes release of
the information is required. The NSA/CSS Appeal Authority shall respond
to the appeal within 20 working days after receipt.
In your letter, you take exception to the amount requested by this
Agency for manpower and computer search fees to process your original
request for all information on Project Aquarius. Please be advised that
NSA search and duplication fees are computed in accordance with guidance
promulgated in sections 6-201 and 6-202 of DoD Directive 5400.7-R.
Sincerely,
JULIA B. WETZEL
Director of Policy
________________________________________________________________________
#
QUESTIONS ON AQUARIUS
by Christian P. Lambright
It has been said that there are three kinds of people, those who
make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who won-
der...what happened...? It seems that nothing more true could be said of
the types of people involved in the arena of UFO interest. The recent con-
troversy concerning the alleged project entitled "AQUARIUS" and the con-
trol group labeled "MJ-12" seems a prime example of the confusion that re-
sults from lack of communication between interested parties. Is there a
project AQUARIUS which deals with UFOs? Who first discovered that such a
project existed? If the documentation supporting the existence of an "MJ-
12" group is valid, as some contend, then why does it appear full of dis-
crepancies? These are questions that need to be addressed before any at-
tempt can be made to judge the validity of the issues.
As any good detective can tell, motivation is a helpful key in solv-
ing any crime or mystery. Who would stand to gain by the situation at
hand? Perhaps a little of this line of reasoning would help in solving the
current mystery of AQUARIUS/MJ-12. The revelation of a UFO-related project
by the name of AQUARIUS first appeared on the scene in what has commonly
been referred to as the "NASA-telex" [AQUARIUS.DOC]. This is the allegedly
genuine document which describes several pieces of photographic film relat-
ing to incidents at Kirtland AFB and the case of Paul Bennewitz. As most
knowledgeable people are aware, this document relates quite a bit of inter-
esting information pertaining to official interest in UFOs as well as men-
tioning the existence of project AQUARIUS and something called "MJ-12".
However, several key areas in this document were deleted by either the
original source or by the recipient. It is interesting to note that there
is a retyped version of this document which has circulated with the dele-
tions filled-in, but with no explanation as to who retyped it or how the
previously deleted areas were uncovered.
Reportedly Peter Gersten was shown this document in 1983 and so it
would seem that it has been around for several years. But if Gersten was
the original recipient he has not revealed where he obtained it or from
whom. This document would appear to be closely tied to the events at Kirt-
land AFB in 1980 inasmuch as it mentions Bennewitz and the Air Force inter-
est in UFO sightings over military bases. Could the release of this docu-
ment be related to the release of the initial document(s) concerning the
events at Kirtland? [KIRTLND1.DOC, KIRTLND2.DOC] William Moore has stated
that he was first given the initial Kirtland documents in Washington DC in
early 1982 by an unnamed source. And there have been several rumors circu-
lated concerning heated arguments between Moore and Gersten over the means
by which Gersten obtained these documents. Rumors aside, if Moore received
his documents over one year _after_ the incidents occurred then whoever
gave him these copies must have had access to them either from AFOSI files
in Washington or from the original sender at Kirtland. There are indica-
tions that William Moore received his copies from Richard Doty, the AFOSI
Special Agent at Kirtland AFB. Other sources have also reported that Doty
was involved in an effort to get information of this nature out to certain
individuals for purposes unknown. And so it seems possible that Doty was
responsible for the Kirtland documents and perhaps the "NASA-telex" being
released as he would have been in a position to have access to such infor-
mation. Regardless, it would fall to serious UFO researchers to attempt to
verify if the documents conveyed valid information, or disinformation.
As interest began to focus on AQUARIUS and "MJ-12" several different
FOIA requests were filed with various government agencies to try to garn-
ish information on these subjects, but as recently as 1986 most of the
leading figures in Ufology were convinced that the document was a forgery
and that Project AQUARIUS was nonexistent. In 1985 I had filed several
different requests with government agencies requesting information on
three projects: Sigma, Snowbird and Aquarius; as well as any information
pertaining to MJ-12 or Majestic-12. I specifically did not mention any
connection or interest dealing with UFOs in these requests. With the excep-
tion of the National Security Agency every response I received was a de-
nial of any knowledge of any of these subjects or titles. While they sta-
ted that Sigma and Snowbird were "not projects of this agency" and that
they had no knowledge of MJ-12, they estimated that search fees for all
information on Project AQUARIUS would be $15,000! It would appear that
this is a rather expansive project. After several subsequent requests for
clarification and to simply send the initial document which initiated the
project the NSA stated that the project did not deal with "UFOs" and that
as I would not be paying the fees they were concluding action on my re-
quests. Subsequent appeals only clarified that Project AQUARIUS was
classified Top Secret and that release of any portion of it could pose
"grave danger to the national security." [AQUANSA.DOC]
Several individuals have considered the statement by the NSA that
AQUARIUS does not deal with UFOs to be patently honest, and perhaps this
is the truth. However I believe that to have expected the NSA to "roll-
over" and openly reveal otherwise would be naive to say the least. It
seems paradoxical that some "researchers" both expect these agencies to be
deceptive but will readily accept some statements as totally accurate. I
believe that there are sufficient reasons to suspect that the NSA project
may actually be the project which is indicated in the "NASA-telex" which
originally mentioned it and MJ-12.
In the process of trying to verify the above document I had ad-
dressed a series of letters to what was designated the 7602 Air Intel-
ligence Group (7602 AINTELG), as of 1983 known as the Air Force Special
Activities Center. A Branch of the Air Force Intelligence Service, the
7602 AINTELG deals with human resource intelligence, much the same as the
4602 AINTELG which is known to have aided Edward Ruppelt in his investi-
gations several years ago. This may or may not be coincidence and could be
an interesting avenue for further research. Nevertheless, in the process
of trying to get information on this group I had been receiving somewhat
evasive response letters from AFIS. In a conversation with an Air Force
source in which I had referred to my problems in obtaining information on
this group I was informed that perhaps this is due to the fact that "they
are a branch of the NSA!" This was at the time my first indication that
there may be some NSA involvement, and was prior to my letters to NSA it-
self. Within a few months I was to learn another interesting fact pointing
to the NSA.
With the aid of well-known research Thomas Adams I was notified of a
person who reportedly had heard a very interesting statement concerning
the initial AQUARIUS/MJ-12 document. After speaking with this gentleman
personally I was firmly convinced that the information he was relating was
accurate as it had been told to him. He related that he had been told per-
sonally that this document had been changed in two ways, and that he had
been told this by the individual who had changed it. Although both changes
were not revealed, he had been told that the reference in the document to
"NASA" had originally been "NSA"! And who was the person doing the telling
...none other than William Moore. In a brief conversation with Moore after
this in which I asked him if he had any knowledge of this he simply stated
"No comment."
The recent issue of JUST CAUSE also contains the statement by Larry
Fawcett and Barry Greenwood that they have been told that this document is
actually a retyped version. This fact was reportedly revealed in 1983 to
Peter Gersten by an Air Force officer and was either forgotten or over-
looked until just recently. However, the Air Force source who is cited is
said to be none other than Richard Doty himself.
In light of the fact that it has recently become common knowledge
that Mr. Moore does (for his own reasons) delete documents which he ob-
tains, and that he is rather aggressive in his research, I believe that
Mr. Moore did in fact retype or have this document retyped. But does this
negate the value of the document, or indicate that it is a hoax? Perhaps
this explains why no one can verify if the document is genuine, because
technically it _is_ a forgery. It would appear that it is up to Mr. Moore
to reveal a clean, accurate version and to finally reveal the facts behind
its acquisition.
According to film producer and director Linda Moulton Howe, she has
had independent confirmation of MJ-12 and reportedly was shown a set of
documents containing much of the same, if not identical, information. How-
ever, the actual name of the group in question was not "Majestic" but an-
other similar sounding word containing the letters M and J. Could it be
that the term "Majestic" was a substitution in a clever attempt to with-
hold a key bit of information which only someone with true inside inform-
ation would be able to identify?
If there is reason to question the accuracy of the information pre-
sented in the original AQUARIUS/MJ-12 document as well as the information
in the recent documents pertaining to MJ-12, does this logically imply
that the 1980 Kirtland/Bennewitz events should be considered questionable?
Any single-witness UFO sighting has always been somewhat questionable,
this is exactly why we look for multiple witnesses and any other support-
ing evidence. If Richard Doty, or Paul Bennewitz were alone in reporting
these incidents then the Kirtland events would never have become as major
an issue as they have. However there were numerous individuals involved
not only in the events precipitating the documents but in the preparation
of the documents themselves. A brief summary of the incidents is as fol-
lows:
Early 1980, Paul Bennewitz becomes involved in observing and filming
objects which he has sighted on the ground and in the air near Kirt-
land AFB and the Manzano range. Reportedly his wife was also present
to witness some of the first landings he witnessed and filmed in the
Coyote Canyon area. Subsequently he contacts Earnest Edwards of the
Kirtland Security Police who, over the period of the next few
months, becomes concerned and requests the guards on the Manzano
Weapons Storage Area report to him any sightings of unusual aerial
lights. At the beginning of August 1980 three guards report sighting
an aerial light which descends on the Sandia Military Reservation.
This is the first sighting described in the complaint form signed by
Richard Doty. Edwards reports the sighting to Doty unaware that Doty
has already heard from Russ Curtis (Sandia Security Chief) that a
Sandia Security guard sighted a disc-shaped object near a structure
just minutes after the sighting by the three Manzano guards. Doty
includes these reports and several others in his Complaint Form and
forwards the report to AFOSI Headquarters in Washington.
From this point on many other persons became involved. Bennewitz was
called down to a meeting at Kirtland AFB at which several major Air Force
officers and Sandia personnel were present, including a Brigadier General.
Earnest Edwards has confirmed that the three guards under his command re-
ported what was described, and that the meeting took place. Bennewitz has
confirmed that Doty and Jerry Miller came to his home to view his mater-
ials and there is a document signed by Thomas A. Cseh, Commander of the
Base Investigative Detachment, to confirm this. Finally there is the com-
plete set of documents which were released by AFOSI Headquarters under
cover of the Department of the Air Force relating to the described events.
There seem to be only two possibilities to consider. One: that this
is one of the most profound deceptions that has been undertaken with the
sanction of the USAF, involving a civilian, for purposes which can only be
imagined. The other: that the events happened as described and that the
intervening years, subsequent developments, and misguided researchers,
have only clouded the facts. Perhaps there was also some effort made on an
official level to defuse the sensitive nature of the events.
Would Richard Doty have perpetrated a hoax, involved other officers
in his deception, sent the hoax on to AFOSI Headquarters, and then spread
certain information to civilian UFO researchers? For what purpose? And
would he still be in the Air Force if he was discovered, knowing the
public relations catastrophe that could result from AFOSI in Washington
releasing the subsequent documents? If seems inconceivable that the Base
Investigative Detachment, and the Department of the Air Force, would not
have quickly and easily discovered the hoax and subsequently labeled the
entire matter as such, knowing their previous predilection to do just
that.
A few simple telephone calls have served to clarify much of the
truth of the initial incidents. We must avoid the temptation at times to
"shoot first and ask questions later" which can result in spreading mis-
information ourselves. It is advisable to use tact in approaching wit-
nesses as we have no God-given right to call up strangers and demand that
they answer questions, particularly when sensitive matters may be in-
volved. Is it any surprise that some of these people may not want to be
bothered by every person who plies them with questions?
A very bizarre but intriguing letter was sent to APRO in either late
1980 or early 1981 and is commonly referred to by the name of the initial
subject of the letter, a Mr. Craig Weitzel. This letter refers to a se-
quence of events which occurred in the mid-1980's at both Kirtland AFB and
in an area near Pecos, NM and also makes several statements to the effect
that there is a UFO-investigation detachment stationed at or near Kirt-
land. The writer also goes on to mention among other things that there is
at least one "object" stored in the Manzano storage area. That the letter
was at least legitimately received at APRO can be ascertained by the vehe-
ment letter which Jim Lorenzen mailed out rebuking the gentleman who re-
leased this letter without official permission from APRO. However, can we
determine if this letter is a total hoax or is there even a grain of truth
to be found in the information it conveys? In a conversation I had with
Craig Weitzel he claimed to know nothing of the details related in the
letter, and denied that he took any photographs. Strangely enough, how-
ever, he _did_ state that he and the other did see an unusual silvery
object hovering high in the sky which left the area, to use his words,
"exponentially"! He had been training in mountain rescue operations and he
and the others had spelled out S-O-S on the mountain side using parachutes
and were waiting for the rescue helicopters to spot them. While looking
for these helicopters they notices the silvery "UFO". If this is all that
occurred what could be the reason to fabricate such a letter and yet give
the name and address of a witness who was sure to refute the claims? Was
it just a bizarre practical joke? The author of the anonymous letter
claims that after Weitzel spoke with AFOSI agent Dody (sic) he did not
want to have anything more to do with the matter and subsequently the Dody
character denied that there had been any photographs. Was this a circum-
stance that could have been expected based on previous experience with Air
Force handling of such matters? Many government and military witnesses
often refuse to talk about their experiences to strangers either because
of official pressure or simply for the sake of their own privacy. Motiva-
tion again must be considered in efforts to find the complete truth.
In early October 1987 I had a strange conversation with an indivi-
dual who is unknown to me except by first name and who initially knew
absolutely nothing about my interest in UFOs. During a telephone conversa-
tion which took place totally by chance, the subject of nuclear weapons
came up as this person indicated some knowledge of this weaponry, being at
the time a member of the Air Force. I jokingly asked to know everything
there was to know about Kirtland AFB, but not due to my interest in nuc-
lear weapons per se but because of something else I thought may be stored
at Manzano that "isn't nuclear weapons." After a momentary chuckle this
individual said, "yes...UFOs!" As astounded as I was I asked for a little
clarification, and after relating my interest, I was told that there are
two "objects" stored in the Manzano area from what this person had heard
during conversations by Air Force personnel in Germany. There had been
some discussion about something which was related to a UFO incident widely
reported in German newspapers in 1981 being similar to something which
"they" had "over here." Because of the circumstances under which this
conversation occurred and the fact that I had in no way even alluded to
the subject I believe that this may offer some support to some of the
statements made in the anonymous "Weitzel" letter.
A final note of interest has come up in the newly released book on
the "flying boomerang" objects reported in recent years in and around New
York state [NIGHT SIEGE, Ballantine 1987]. In the process of investigating
these incidents Hynek and Imbrogno were contacted by an individual who
claimed to work for the NSA. They apparently verified this to their own
satisfaction, and while this person professed that his interest was only
personal, they were struck by the inordinate amount of interest this per-
son showed in their investigations and any evidence they uncovered. There
are even indications that their telephones may have been tapped. While it
is unknown if this man's interest went further than personal curiosity, it
is clear that the investigators felt there was something unusual about it.
Nevertheless, here is yet another instance in which the National Security
Agency seems to have crept into the picture.
Do the facts as outlined here cast reasonable suspicion on the NSA
and its part in official interest in unidentified flying objects? I be-
lieve that they do and that there is justifiable cause to suspect that the
project AQUARIUS which relates (at least in some way) to UFOs is probably
an NSA, or NSA related project. It also still seems that in spite of the
arguments and confusion concerning documents, the designation "MJ-12" must
be considered if not a certainty, than at least potentially valid. Those
who have taken the time to contact witnesses and obtain their statements
and help, have the best chance to make up their minds for themselves, re-
gardless of the confusion concerning altered documents which seems to be
precipitating furiously. We do not want to throw the proverbial baby out
with the bath water simply because the facts seem confusing. Perhaps even
the confusion is being directed by someone somewhere. We should keep our
sights fixed firmly on the major issues and the facts we _can_ prove in
our efforts to uncover the truth.
END
Thanks to all those sources both named and unnamed who have contributed to
the facts outlined here.
DATE OF UPLOAD: November 24, 1989
ORIGIN OF UPLOAD: ParaNet Zeta-Reticuli
CONTRIBUTED BY: Jim Speiser
========================================================
(C) Copyright 1989 ParaNet Information Service
All Rights Reserved unless copyrighted by Author.
THIS FILE WAS PREPARED BY PARANET ALPHA -- PARANET INFORMATION
SERVICE
1-303-232-6115 9600 BAUD
1-303-232-8303 VOICE
DENVER, COLORADO
NOTE: THESE FILES ARE NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE
OF THE PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE NETWORK
========================================================
Notes to AQUARIUS II:
1. Moore explains the origin of the document as follows:
"This is an actual example of some of the disinformation produced in
connection with the Bennewitz case. The document is a retyped cversion
of a real AFOSI message with a few spurious additions. It was apparently
created by AFOSI, or at least I always assumed it was, and it was handed
to me in February 1981 with the intention that I would pass it to
Bennewitz. My understanding, although I never knew for sure, was that
Bennewitz was expected to wave it to the press and others as proof of
what he was saying about an alien invasion, at which point the document
would be denounced as a counterfeit and Bennewitz would be further
discredited. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, depending upon one's
point of view) it didn't turn out that way."
2. In an attempt to be as true as possible to the actual document, I
have purposely formatted lines beyond the normal 80 character limit. For
this reason, I suggest you download the document and view it with a text
processor that allows you to view files with line lengths > 80 chars.
3. According to Moore, the text of this document is the same as it
appeared in the oroginal message, except as follows:
4. Material in [braces] indicates that material which appeared in the
original message was REMOVED and REPLACED by spurious text.
5. Material appearing in {curly braces} indicates totally spurious
material which was ADDED to the legitimate text of the original message.
6. The symbol XXXX indicates places where transmission codes from the
original were removed and not replaced.
7. "WINTEL" in a genuine message would be "WNINTEL" (Western AFOSI
Office)
8. "SPA" means Special Purpose Access.
9. Misspellings, to the best of my ability, are true to the document.
10. A discussion will follow in a subsequent file.
--Jim Speiser
BEGIN DOCUMENT
_____________________________________________________________________________
S E C R E T
XXXXXXXXXX ***********
XXXXXXXXXX * SECRET *
***********
RTTEZYVW RUFLOJA9136 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
ZNY S E C R E T
GT
SECRET FOR AFOSI ONLY
R 171139Z NOV 80
FM HQ AFOSI BOLLING AFB DC//IVOE
TO RUWTFBA AFOSI DIST 17 KIRTLAND AFB NM//BID
INFO 7602 AINTELG FT BELVOIR VA//[INSR]
SECRET FOR AFOSI ONLY
REF:REQUEST FOR PHOTO IMAGERY INTERPRETATION YOUR MSG 292030Z OCT 80.
SUBJECT CASE NR: 8017D93-126 HQ CR 44
1. SUBJECT NEGATIVES/FILM WERE ANALYZED BY HQ IVT AND 7602 AINTELG/IT AND THE
FOLLOWING RESULTS WERE FOUND:
A. NEGATIVE #1: DEPLICTING C-5A AIRCRAFT ON APPROACH AND STREAKING UNIDENTIFIED
AERIAL OBJECT IN LOWER RIGHT PORTION OF FILM. FILM FOUND TO BE UNALTERED. SIZE
DIFFERENTIAL WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH SIZE OF AIRCRAFT. CONCLUSION: INCONCLUSIVE
B. NEGATIVE #2; DEPLICTING CYLINDER SHAPED UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECT IN UPPER
LEFT PORTION OF PHOTO. FILM FOUND TO BE UNALTERED. FILM SHOWED OBJECT TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH FIELD DEPH AND CONSISTENT WITH RELATIVE SIZE OF FIXED OBJECTS.
CONCLUSION: LEGITIMATE NEGATIVE OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECT. {BOLTON,REINFELD
METHOD DID NOT REVEAL VISIBLE MARKINGS ON OBJECT.}
C. NEGATIVE #3: DEPLICTING IRRECULAR SHAPED UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECT IN
SEVEN FRAMES OF 8MM FILM. BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND APPARENT SPEED OF OBJECT
NO FURTHER CLASSIFICATION OR CONCLUSION COULD BE DRAWN. FILM SHOWN TO BE
UNALTERED.
D. 34 INCHES OF 8MM FILM: DEPLICTING APPARENT COLORED OBJECT MOVING IN FRONT
OF STILL CAMERA. FILM FOUND TO BE UNALTERED. SPECTROGRAPHY REVEALED COLORES TO
BE BASIC PRISM FEATURES. DEPTH ANALYSIS REVEALED OBJECT TO BE WITHIN 152MM OF
CAMERA. OBJECT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH RELATIVE SIZE OF FIXED OBJECTS OBSERVED
FOR SEVERAL SECONDS IN FILM. CONCLUSION: INCONCLUSIVE.
E. ORIGINAL NEGATIVE DEPLICTING UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT. FILM FOUND TO BE UNALTERED.
BECAUSE OF A LACK OF FIXED OBJECTS IN THE FILM, NO DEPTH ANALYSIS COULD BE
PERFORMED. {BOLTON,REINFELD METHOD REVEALED OBJECT TO BE SAUCER SHAPED,
APPROXIMATE DIAMETER 37 FEET. OBJECT CONTAINED A TRILATERAL INSIGNIA ON THE
LOWER PORTION OF OBJECT.} CONCLUSION: LEGITIMATE NEGATIVE OF UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL
OBJECT.
2. REF YOUR REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING HQ CR 44, THE FOLLOWING
IS PROVIDED: [CAPT. GRACE] 7602 AINTELG, INS CONTACTED AND RELATED FOLLOWING: (S/[WINTEL])
USAF NO LONGER PUBLICLY ACTIVE IN UFO RESEARCH, HOWEVER USAF STILL HAS INTEREST
IN ALL UFO SIGHTINGS OVER USAF INSALLATION/TEST RANGES. SEVERAL OTHER GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES, LEAD BY [NASA], ACTIVELY INVESTIGATES LEGITIMATE SIGHTINGS THROUGH COVERT
COVER. (S/[WINTEL/FSA]) {ONE SUCH COVER IS UFO REPORTING CENTER, US COAST AND GEODETIC
SURVEY, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852. NASA FILTERS RESULTS OF SIGHTINGS TO APPROPRIATE
MILITARY DEPARTMENTS WITH INTEREST IN THAT PARTICULAR SIGHTING. THE OFFICIAL
US GOVERNMENT POLICY AND} RESULTS OF PROJECT AQUARIUS IS STILL CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET
WITH NO DISSEMINATION OUTSIDE OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CHANNELS AND WITH RESTRICTED
ACCESS TO "MJ TWELVE". CASE ON BENNEWITZ IS BEING MONITORED BY [NASA/INS], WHO
REQUEST ALL FUTURE EVIDENCE BE FORWARDED TO THEM THRU AFOSI/IVOE.
4. REF YOUR REQUEST FOR TEHCNICAL ASSISTANCE. BECAUSE OF A CHANCE OF PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE, NO KNOLWEDGEABLE PERSONNEL WITH SPA WILL BE PROVIDED. CONTINUE TO RECEIVE
ASSISTANCE FROM INDIVIDUALS MENTIONED IN YOUR MESSAGE, MILLER, FUGATE. BECAUSE OF
THE SENSITIVITY OF CASE, REQUEST THEY BE THOROUGHLY DEBRIEFED AT REGULAR INTERVALS.
BTS_________XXXXXXXX
NNNS
DOWNGRADE 17NOV2020
***********
* SECRET *
***********
S E C R E T
TOP SECRET
EXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCE
EXECUTIVE BRIEFING
SUBJECT:
PROJECT AQUARIUS
ATTENTION
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY MJ12. MJ12 IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS SUBJECT MATTER.
TOP SECRET
PROJECT AQUARIUS
ITS/ORCOM {PROWORD: [BLANKED] Contains 16 volumes of documented information
collected from the beginning of the United States Investigation of Unidentified
Flying Objects (UFOs) and Identified Alien Crafts (IAC). The Project was
originally established in 195[4?] by order of President Eisenhower under
control of [BLANKED]. In [BLANKED] the project's name was changed from Project
[BLANKED] to Project Aquarius. [UNREADABLE] [BLANKED] confidential funds
non-appropriated [BLANKED] Dec. 1969 after Project Blue Book was closed. The
purpose of the [UNREADABLE] collect all scientific, technological, medical and
intelligence [UNREADABLE] UFO/IAC sightings, and contacts with alien life
forms. This [UNREADABLE] information has been used to advance the United States
space program.
[UNREADABLE] The preceding briefing is an historical account of the United States Government's investigation of Aerial phenomenas, recovered alien [UNREADABLE] Contacts with Extraterrestrial Life Forms.
CUFON - UFO INFORMATION SERVICE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT DOCUMENT FILES
__________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Peter L. Clarke 5 December 1983
KOB Television
4 Broadcast Plaza SW
PO Box 1351
Albuquerque NM 87103
Dear Mr. Clarke
This is in reference to your Freedom of Information Act request fo 18
November 1983 requesting access to information regarding photographs taken by
Paul Bennewitz in 1980 near Kirtland AFB.
The only information we have in our files regarding this incident is a copy
of a message, originator unknown, which apparently was placed in circulation
in at least three cities in the U.S. This message discusses analysis of UFO
photographs, and, while it does not mention who the photographer was, it does
mention the name Bennewitz. The purported originator, the Air Force Office
of Special Investigations, has reviewed the message and confirmed that it is
a hoax. While the Air Force Intelligence Service is listed as a recipient of
the message, we hve no record of ever receiving it from AFOSI. The copy
which we have in our files was forwarded to us by the organization Citizens
Against UFO Secrecy.
We are attaching a copy of the document as we received it. We have, however,
removed the bogus security markings so as not to alarm any recipients. We
are also attaching other documents created by this agency as a result of the
bogus message. These documents have previously been released to the public
through the Freedom of Information Act.
For your further information, this agency collected information on UFO
sightings for a few years. However, our interest in this topic was
discontinued in the mid-1970's and our UFO records were transferred to the
General Services Administration for inclusion in Project Blue Book. These
records are available for public inspection through the National Archives and
Records Service, Modern Military Branch, 8th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington DC 20408.
Sincerely 3 Atch
1-3. Docs on UFO Incident
SUSAN COOKSEY
Freedom of Information Manager
_____________________________________________________________________________
#
Comments
Post a Comment