CU MEETING RE: E-M EFFECTS & INSTRUMENTATION PLANS

Meeting convened at 9:30 a.m., broke for lunch, and resumed Thereafter, lasting a total of 3 hrs. 45 min. Main panelists were two representatives of Ford Motor Company, F.J. Hooven (Special Consultant to General Manager) and David F. Moyer (Advanced Manufacturing Engineering Manager). Others: Dr. E. U. Condon, Dr. Joseph Rush (in charge of CU project plans for optical instrumentation), Prof. Berndt Matthias (speaker on ball lightning earlier in week, prof. at Univ. of California, San Diego); Bob Low, & others.

Following account will follow the general flow of conversation rather than putting it in logical order.

One of first points from Ford reps was that more data is needed in E-M cases regarding the type of car and type of transmission. One or two skeptics present occasionally interjected that maybe some of the headlight failures were only illusions caused by a brilliant light source drowning out the headlights. One cited the vagueness of many reports. RH said he would check back through NICAP's E-M cases and try to dig out some of the details they need; said in some cases headlights were observed out by others outside the car and couldn't be explained as illusions.

Question was asked, what is the greatest distance known with any reliability in which E-M effects were reported. RH said greater than might be expected; that we first tried to relate E-M effects with closeness, but that also reported at fairly great distances. Some figures to be obtained from NICAP reports.

After a disgression [sic] on oxygen deprivation, gasses, etc. that might cause failures, Hooven was asked to imagine anything that might stop a car electrically (he felt that electrical interference of some kind was far more reasonable than stray gasses, etc.) Hooven replied that he couldn't conceive of anything that would stop a car, especially the low impedance headlight Circuits; somewhat easier to rationalize motor failures (high voltage circuits). The reversible process (motors restarting by themselves as sometimes reported) are especially difficult to account for. Most domestic headlight now use circuit breakers rather than fuses (this is one point for investigators to determine).

Matthias raised the possibility of effects of ultrasonics, that they might temporarily disrupt circuit breakers. Moyer said circuit breakers were well-protected, energies required would cause fire, etc., and have other obvious effects. Fact that European automobiles had been affected (Michel's cases) was mentioned.

Condon inquired about information on tests actually made on cars to see what did affect then, (jokingly terming this approach experimentation, not related to real science). Someone suggested there may be Civil Defense data telling effects of radiation on cars, since CD cars would have to operate in radioactive, areas. Question was asked about possible effects of strong radar on cars. It was agreed to try to obtain sash this type of data as background.

The Antarctic magnetometer case was mentioned; Condon asked if any other magnetometer cases; RH said he wasn't aware of any. Condon said not surprising since so few magnetometers in existence. Man from ESSA or HCAR said about 150 sites existed; said he knew of no odd readings obtained. RH cited parallel of "no radar," "no Smithsonian photos," and raised question of whether such unusual data might be rationalized or ignored. Got some support on this from others present. Brief discussion on attempts to match up UFO reports near magnetometer sites, then check back through records for odd readings. Idea died out.

Hooven said he and Moyer had been toying with idea of a tape recording device with telemetry for magnetic/electric readings which might be circulated to police agencies. Discussion on value of police officers as witnesses ensued, with skepticism voiced by some. Condon said state police probably better in general. (Low had previously expressed his preference for pilots, FAA types, willingness to let NICAP develop police net).

Some discussion on magnitude of a stationary (static) magnetic field required to stall auto engines. General agreement that it would have to be very large, about 20,000 Gauss (far beyond normal experience). Discussion of constructing huge magnet and running car through field. Considered impractical. Moyer said huge magnet would saturate the hood of car, then go inside, eventually producing flux in the coil such that couldn't get any spark. Condon asked about data on sensations an individual might have in such a field. (Wadsworth, who made basic presentation of types of E-M cases reported, had mentioned "numbness" and "paralysis" cases). Matthias cited personal experience of painful effects on fillings in his teeth while he was moving in a large magnetic field.

Question of more experimentation raised. Condon said no definite decisions had been reached. Considering cameras, diffraction gratings, and now E-M sensors had been suggested. Condon said any field equipment would have to be cheap and foolproof. Amateur interest could be exploited, and perhaps even some devices could be marketed. Discussion ensued re: distribution of devices to NICAP, the general public, ... and some problems of mass distribution (such as a flood of poor information).

Dr. Rush said he would ask Sky & Telescope, Scientific American and other similar mags to cooperate, publicize and help distribute.

Condon asked RH the chances of getting to the site and recording something while a sighting was still in progress; how often did our personnel arrive in time to see something. RH estimated that in recent years perhaps 12 times a year (e.g., recurring sightings in Exeter; Ft. Smith, Ark; LA Subc. where members have seen a UFO reported to them...) Condon and Rush both found this greatly encouraging, though RH later had doubts about his own estimate.

After some skeptical remarks by one of the CU panelists to the effect that, "how did we know the E-M reports were not mistaken observations to begin with," Hooven and Condon both took the position there was no point to the present meeting at all if we made that assumption. Hooven disputed the position that, "if we can't explain it, it couldn't happen." He cited some examples from the history of science to make his point, and envisioned scientists of 200 years ago looking at the marvels of today, unable to understand the many new principles and inventions evolved since their time. (It was particularly pleasing to have Condon express the positive approach at this point).

Since a debate had been going on about what types of instrumentation should be developed, and whether they should be distributed selectively or generally, RH suggested development of a gadget to put on cars such that if an E-M case occurred data would be obtained regardless of the type of witness, and not requiring his knowledge of the mechanism. In the process, RH used the unfortunate phrase of making the gadget "standard equipment" on cars, bringing a loud groan from the Ford people and throwing the discussion off the track momentarily. RH quickly amended this to mean distribution to a large sample of car-owners, for example, all NICAP members. Condon picked up the idea, labeling it the "black box," and seeing certain advantages to it. The device would be used in certain specified ways, following rules A, B & C without introduction of error by the witness, and would tend to offset the weaknesses of general distribution as stated strongly by Matthias.

Question was raised about frequency of day vs. night E-M cases, and RH could not answer. Said NICAP could follow-up on older cases and try to obtain some of missing data. Also want to study older cases to find any containing ranging information. RH said many definitely included this information.

Low again raised question of possible Ford experimentation to determine actual effects on autos by magnetic fields, etc. Hooven suggested a study of battery and headlights alone, but Condon objected on the grounds that they would want the more complete environment, (i.e, total auto) to be sure nothing was overlooked.

Anti-gravity was briefly mentioned as a possible real cause behind E-M cases; a system which might have E-M side effects. (The extraterrestrial hypothesis obviously was being taken seriously).

AFTERNOON SESSION

Began by summing up morning session; realization that so far they had been dealing basically with NICAP raw material, few other sources. At one point during a discussion of the present rate of reports RH had said NICAP was getting 100 a week) Condon asked Low, "How many are we receiving from the Air Force, about 10 a week?" Low replied that right now they were receiving "more than 10 a week."

Dr. Rush sunned up his ideas and present plans on quantitative measurement. Agreed they would equip NICAP teams, at least, and circulate gear as widely as possible as long as objective use factor taken into account. Perhaps put some fancier gear in select locations. RH said NICAP had considered a kit from time to time (compass, diffraction grating & other simple devices) & Rush has similar plans for Colorado investigators.

More discussion on logistics and range of distribution, from very popular to highly selective. Condon said they would study the range of possibilities further, and asked members to do so and make recommendations.

Hooven raised possibility of querying Ford dealers (6000) re: UFO reports in general and E-M effects in particular. Or (fewer) regional representatives. Rush summed up by saying that a "coordinated variety of instrumentation" was the biggest need. Low emphasized that a little good data would be infinitely superior to droves of mediocre data.

At this point, discussion came down to believability of occupant reports, communication attempts; have any radio signals been reported? It was agreed that some of these would provide ultimate proof, but obvious problems with kooks, etc., inhibit attempts in these areas.

Main conclusions were that data gathering needs improving and specific means would be worked out to accomplish this; dissemination problems for devices need to be ironed out; Ford will work on ideas and designs for instrumentation.

NOTES

Low at one point made the statement that in 1953 a "private company" (presumably a reference to RAND) had spent $600,000 on a UFO study, and it was worthless.

Toward the end of the meeting, Hooven mentioned a photo in Feb. issue of Sky &. Telescope, pg. 12, showing an unexplained object in front of the sun, and a follow-up letter in March issue. Discussion about whether it was a UFO, a revival of the Planet Vulcan, or what. Some argument that it couldn't have been a satellite, but disputed by Low who mentioned the many classified payloads in orbit.

CHECK-LIST FOR E-M CASES

(Evolved by RH from meeting notes)

Year, make and style of car.

Headlights -- fused or circuit breakers?

Were all cars in area of sighting affected, or selective effect?

If headlights reported out, was this observed from outside car?

Ranging data.

Day or night? (Lighting conditions)

Sequence of various effects.

Any effect on battery?

... to be enlarged ...