MOST PROBABLE WEATHER NEAR SIGHTING POINT AT 11:30 a.m., August 3, 1967

By 11:30 a.m. on August 3, 1965, all overcast cloud cover would have been limited to over-the-ocean or a very narrow belt of land area nearest the coast where the onshore flow of air could carry it before the heated land surface would cause dissipation. At the forward (landward) edge of the cloud mass the cloud cover condition would change rapidly from overcast to broken to scattered to clear. The small cloud parcels making up the scattered condition could have seemed to appear and disappear rapidly. The disappearance would have been caused by the change of state from liquid water to vapor as mixing with the surrounding warmer air took place.

The forward edge of the scattered cloud condition would have been limited to the coastal side of the Santa Ana Freeway and probably was at a distance of 4 to 8 miles from the sighting point. Surface visibility reported at both Long Beach and El Toro Marine Corps Air Station at 11 a.m. was limited to 5 miles. Thus, any clouds

which may have been sighted could only have had a rather vague outline as seen several miles away through the haze.

Sky conditions inland from the Santa Ana Freeway are believed to have been totally cloud free at this time.

Sightings, General Information:

Setting.  On 3 August 1965 the witness, Traffic Inspector Tech 2 for the Orange County Road Department, Calif. (1) was driving SW on Myford Road in his official car, a Ford van bus (8,9), inspecting overhanging growth along the roadside. He proceeded SW on Myford Road, turned around and drove slowly NE, at about 5 mph along the right-hand shoulder of Myford Road, about 0.3 mi. SW of the Santa Ana Freeway (3).

Radio disturbance.   At approximately 12:30 p.m. PDT (estimated P.E. plus or minus 10 min.) the witness began trying to contact Orange Co. Road Maintenance headquarters by radio. According to the witness, about three words were received by base station "8" on East Fruit St. after which "The radio went completely dead (l)." An Air Force investigator later recorded notes that the witness stated "that he had attempted to use his two-way radio once or twice just before he sighted the UFO and could neither transmit nor receive any signal although the radio panel lights indicated that the radio was operational. Detailed questioning indicated that this definitely occurred before the UFO sighting and not during the UFO sighting (5)."

Both the witness's supervisor (4), and the Road Maintenance Superintendent were in vehicles (3, 7c, 14h). The superintendent was located about 0.5-1.0 mi. from the witness on the Santa Ana freeway, and states that he heard the witness trying to contact station "8." He heard the transmission begin, but after about three or four words there was a complete, sudden, sharp cutoff. He stated that the sudden cutoff was unlike normal radio interference or disturbance.

The cutoff he heard could not have been produced by simply switching off the truck radio (7c). The Santa Ana FCC Facility reported no UHF or VHF interference on this day (5).

Visual and photographic sighting; description of object. The witness states:

At this time, I became aware of the UFO, however I thought it was a conventional aircraft...The UFO moved from my left to in front of me and momentarily hovered there. At this time I grabbed the camera (semi-automatic-Model 101 polaroid), from the seat of the truck and took the first photograph through the windshield of the truck.

The object then moved slowly off to the northeast. I then snapped the second picture through the right door window (window closed). This is when I saw the rotating beam of light emitting from the center of the UFO on the bottom side. [See below-WKH]

The UFO positioned itself to another angle of view and I snapped the third picture through the same side window as in picture two...

As the UFO traveled, it maintained a relatively level altitude (150 ft.) in relation to the flat terrain, however the UFO acted similar to a gyroscope when losing its stability. The UFO continued moving away slowly gaining altitude, tipped its top toward me slightly. It seemed to gain stability, then it increased its velocity (speed) and altitude more rapidly leaving a deposit of smoke-like vapor.

The smoke-like vapor was blue-black in color and circular in shape as though it had emitted from the outer ring of the UFO. This doughnut shaped vapor ring remained in the area in excess of thirty seconds. The UFO disappeared in a northern

direction toward Saddleback Mountain (this is known on the maps as Santiago Peak and Modjeska) (1).

Plates 42, 43, 44 show the three photographs in the order mentioned above.

Plate 42: Santa Ana Photo 1

Click on Thumbnail to see Full-size image.

Plate 43: Santa Ana Photo 2

Click on Thumbnail to see Full-size image.

Plate 44: Santa Ana Photo 3

Click on Thumbnail to see Full-size image.

Although the above reference does not mention it, a fourth photograph (Plate 45), of the smoke cloud, was later produced by the witness. The earliest document mentioning this photograph is a report by the witness and a NICAP investigator (2), and a letter by a local member of NICAP (3), both dated 25 September 1965.

Plate 45: Santa Ana Photo 4

Click on Thumbnail to see Full-size image.

On the basis of more detailed questioning, as reported in the referenced documents, it has been possible to construct the following more detailed account of the alleged visual and photographic sighting.

The camera mentioned is standard equipment for Orange Co. Road Department officials, and has the following characteristics: F. L. 114 mm., variable aperture from "f8.0" to about f42, picture format 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 in., shutter speed "unknown but variable," and black-and-white film, speed ASA 3000 (4). The camera is described as fully automatic, utilizing a built-in light meter which automatically adjusts shutter speed and aperture. The only controls are a black-and-white or color select and a shutter release button (4).

Doubts as to whether or not the witness could have observed the UFO, stopped his vehicle and taken three photographs within 15-25 sec. were resolved by testing such a camera. It was determined that an experienced man could easily take three photographs within 12 sec. (5).

In reconstructing the incident two years later an investigator, accompanied by the witness and several others in an identical truck and with an identical camera, concluded that with the seat in the appropriate position, the UFO in the first photograph would have been obliterated by the top of the windshield as seen through the camera's snap-up viewfinder, but not through the camera's lens. The witness then remarked that he had not sighted through the viewfinder but "shot from the hip (8)."

According to the witness, he picked up his camera, shot the first photograph through the front windshield, then slid two feet to the right and slightly to the rear in the front seat (6), and shot the two other photos through the closed right window. From the second to the third photograph, the UFO has moved to the left (approx N) and the witness has shifted correspondingly to the right, apparently to keep the object in sight and centered in the window.

The UFO then assertedly continued on in this direction, diverging to the right from Myford Road by about 25 deg (i.e. heading 65 deg) and fading in the distance due to the smog (14).

The witness told a Colorado project investigator that he is not sure if he saw the "smudge" of smoke before he started on down the road (7a). He thinks he restarted the truck before proceeding, but does not recall definitely that he ever switched off the engine (3). He believes that he did not see the UFO again after he became aware of the smoke (7a). Answering the NICAP report form question, "How did the object(s) disappear from view?" the witness replied: "Left the area--northerly direction (1)."

The appearance of the UFO can be judged from the photographs as well as from various accounts and interviews. The apparent angular size, judged from the first photograph, was about 2°.4. The witness estimated a diameter of 30 ft., thickness of 8 feet (1, 4), and distance of about 1/8 mi. (1, 4), which corresponds to angular diameter 3°.5. The object was also described on the NICAP report form as equivalent to a dome at arm's length, i.e. about 2°.6 in angular diameter.

The object was sharply defined, with a reflecting surface of "dull gray" color, with the sun "reflecting from different portions of it as it wobbled (1)." It did not change color (1). It made no sound, although the witness noted that nearby helicopters from the Marine Corps Air Facility could be heard, and that their noise could have drowned out sounds the UFO might have made (1). The AF

investigation report described the color as "silver or metallic except for dark areas which appeared to be either whitish or metallic such as that which could indicate light reflection from a relatively slow-moving propeller or rotating blade. In Plate 43 there is a faint indication of such a line running from the center outward at a relative bearing of about 280 deg. Officials in the G-2 office at El Toro stated that the light line was clearly visible in the original (Plate 45) (see Fig. 9). Heflin refers to this feature as a "light beam" in an accompanying sketch (1).

Figure 9: Santa Ana Sighting Locale

Click on Thumbnail to see Full-size image.

Asked if the bottom of the UFO appeared to have any type of structures, openings, or what might appear to be landing gear housings, the witness replied, "No! The only thing I saw on the bottom of the craft was a white beam of light emitting from the center and sweeping in a circle to the outer edge of the craft. The movement of the beam was similar to the sweep of a radar scope beam (1) ."

A number of statements attribute a wobbling, unsteady motion to the UFO: The "object oscillated and/or wobbled (1);" it "moved slowly off to the northeast...positioned itself to another angle of view... traveled further northeast and showed the upper portion of the craft (1);" it "momentarily hovered (1);" it "acted similar to a gyroscope when losing its stability...continues moving away slow1y gaining altitude, tipped its top toward me slightly...seemed to gain stability, then increased its velocity...and altitude more rapidly (1)." On the NICAP report sheet, the witness suggests an airspeed of "300 mi. per hr. est. (1)," which apparently refers to the rapid departure of the UFO.

The report to NICAP states that the interval during which the disc-shaped UFO was visible was "20 seconds max. (1) ." The AF report notes: "Observer estimated total period of observation to be about 15 sec. Based on a test of observer's ability to measure time, it is believed the duration of sighting would be closer to 25 seconds (4)."

The witness drove about a mile NE on Myford Road in the direction of the smoke ring, which would have taken him through an underpass

beneath the Santa Ana Freeway (7a). He had seen the ring before crossing under the freeway (14), and the implication of his statements is that he began driving in that direction in order to get a better look at the distant "smudge." He "drove his car quite some distance closer to where the object had been -- got out of his car and pointed the camera right up at the smoke ring (3)." At approximately the location indicated, on the left (NW) side of Myford Road, stands a row of orange trees with overhead telephone wires, consistent with the fourth photograph (Plate 46): apparently the observer was looking to the NW over these trees at this point (7b). The UFO had departed at an azimuth about 25 deg to the right of Myford Road, (i.e. about 65 deg); the smoke ring had drifted to the left (NW) across the road (14). (see Fig. 9). The NICAP correspondence contains the following remarks: "You will notice that the smoke ring picture shows a rather cloudy sky, and perhaps the finishing of the photo may have something to do with it (3)."

In an interview at the site 16 January 1968, the witness pointed out not only the above angles, but also that the smoke "smudge," as seen from the first position, had an elevation angle judged to be 8 deg. This gives an altitude of about 700 ft. The witness stated that the ring was larger in linear dimension than the UFO had been although he did not actually see it expand. When he left, it was still there, in the process of breaking up as the toroid expanded and dissipated (14).

After the sighting.  The smoke ring was estimated to have "remained in the area in excess of thirty seconds (1)." Having described the smoke cloud and the disappearance of the UFO, the witness declared in his narrative, "At this time I contacted the Santa Ana Base Radio Station and asked them if they could now copy my transmission. They replied the copy was clear (1) ."

The witness made no mention of his experience over the radio (7c). Later that afternoon, at the end of the working day he returned to the office, and showed his supervisor only the first three photographs,

not the "smoke ring (7c)." Another person states that the witness took him aside to show him the fourth photo, which he had left in the truck, but recollects that the witness probably did not show it to the others. He recalls that the witness said that "three were enough for one day" and that his story was already incredible enough (7g).

Radar results.  ". . .A check made by the Marine Corps investigators indicated that no UFO was observed on the Marine Corps Air Facility radar at the time of the reported UFO observation (5)."

The "Facility" referred to by the Air Force investigator is a relatively small base within direct sight of the Myford Road site, but contains only a sporadically used training radar installation. Marine officials interviewed 15 January 1968 were unable to determine whether radar was in service 3 August 1965.

The Air Force investigator may have intended to refer to the surveillance radar, used in Air Traffic control at El Toro M.C. Air Station. Dr. J. E. McDonald and the Colorado investigator examined this radar, which has a four-second sweep time and MTI filtering of ground clutter, such that only moving targets are displayed. It was quite clear that a UFO such as reported by the witness, though it would show up on the El Toro screens, would not be remarked by the routine operators. In the first place, it would appear as ground traffic; trucks on the Santa Ana freeway were clearly visible. Second, the entire area traversed during the first three photographs constitutes merely one radar "blip" diameter. Third, even if the UFO took off at moderate speed, it would probably be interpreted (if noticed at all) as a light aircraft. We were informed that no action would be normally taken unless it approached or endangered commercial or military aircraft, in which case only the larger aircraft, not the "light aircraft," would be contacted.

Numbering and sequence continuity of photos.   Since Polaroid film packs carry numbering on the back, important confirmation for

the Santa Ana case could be found if any of the witness's associates could testify that the four photos were in a continuous sequence. Generally, none of them could recall noting the numbers. The witness, however, testified in 1968 (14) that the pictures had no numbers on the back. J. E. McDonald therefore corresponded with the Polaroid Corporation and received the reply that "the numbers indicating picture sequence...have never been omitted by deliberate design. If the Type 107 film pack in question does not have these numbers, a rare oversight in film manufacture is responsible (15)." However, the witness demonstrated to NICAP investigators from county road department records that there was film in use during the period of the sighting that lacked sequence numbers (15).

Chronology of Subsequent Events and Interviews:

3 August to 14 September 1965.   A friend "convinced the witness that they should try to sell the photographs to Life Magazine (5)." With the witness's consent he called Life the afternoon of the sighting, (7g) and later sent the photos to the Los Angeles office of Life (5, 12). According to the Air Force account, the Los Angeles office expressed interest and advised sending the photos to New York (5, 9); the photos were sent by the witness's friend and returned two weeks later 'without written comment... at about the same time the Los Angeles office telephoned the witness to say that the main office had declined to utilize the material 'because it was too controversial' ... (5) ." The NICAP account differs slightly: "After a period of one week the pictures were returned with a letter stating that the subject was too controversial to publish, however, they did state that the pictures were the best they had seen so far (1, 5)."

During the first few days copies of the photos were requested by various of the witness' friends (5), and the witness let them take the originals to a photo service where copies were made (12).

"Time passed and apparently more copies of the pictures were made and handed out to various friends of friends, until most of Santa Ana was saturated with the UFO pictures (5)."

The witness loaned the original photos to his sister to show to a friend (9, 12), who took them to an amateur photographer (6, 12), who in turn made copies that were "poor but were not cropped (12)." According to the Air Force account, "one of these pictures was obtained by a druggist who then apparently showed it to a friend, a customer who worked for the Santa Ana Register (5)."

Possible Air Force Involvement in August, 1965.   A document (10) entitled "Photo Analysis Report 65-48" was supplied to us by Blue Book. It carries the curious date "14 August 1965." The photographs were not public at this time, nor did the Air Force appear to be actively involved, since their first interview with the witness was on 23 September. One possibility is that this is a typist's error and should have read 14 October 1965, 12 days before the report was quoted in public as the Air Force analysis of the case.

This raises the possibility, then, that without the knowledge of any of the principals, the Air Force was involved in the case less than two weeks after it happened.

Officials of Project Blue Book informed the Colorado project in March 1968 that this question had been raised before, and that the Photo Analysis Report was in error, and that month should have read October.

15-18 September 1965.   On 15 September the witness was interviewed by reporter Frank Hall from the Santa Ana Register (9). According to Hall's recollection two years later, the witness brought his three prints to the paper on the next day. These prints, the witness said, were not originals, but Polaroid copies of the originals which had been made by the witness's close friend (7d). They were good copies in the sense that they filled most of the frame; the second showed

the "rotating light beam (7d)." It is not clear which copies these were. On Friday, the newspaper staff visited the site (7d).

The Air Force chronology states that on or about 18 September the Santa Ana Register borrowed the three original prints from the witness, returned them to him, and published an article with one UFO picture on 20 September 1965 (5). This account is compatible with the reporter's recollection, except that he believes the photos were not originals.

Chief photographer of the Santa Ana Register gives a similar account of the meetings with reporters (3): "The first photographs I saw...were copies of the originals...To me the photos looked clear, with all parts of the picture being in focus from the windows and [rear-view] mirror to the UFO and then farther on down the road to the cars...As far as I could tell the photos were authentic and had not been altered in any way whatsoever."

During the newspaper interviews, the reporter recollects, the witness suggested a polygraph test, but wanted the Register to pay the cost. The newspaper management, however, refused (7d). The Marine report carries this account: "During the interview with the Register reporter, the question was asked whether [the witness] would submit to a polygraph examination, concerning the UFO. He stated that he would...only if the Register or someone put up $1,500.00 with no results guaranteed. [The witness] feels that from his experience as an investigator [sic] that the polygraph is not reliable enough and that if the examination turned out negative, it would endanger his job (9)." It is difficult to choose between these two accounts.

18 September 1965. The witness was "prevailed upon to allow the Santa Ana Register to make six sets of negatives from the original Polaroid prints. He watched while negatives were being made. These were cropped (12)." The NICAP chronology (12) dates this as 18 September. The reporter however, spoke of these pictures as the Polaroid copies, not the original prints (7d). Thus it is not at all clear

that the Register negatives were made from the original Polaroid prints, although the witness insists that the negatives were made from his originals (14).

On the same day the El Toro Marine Air Station investigator then interviewed the witness at his residence (9, 5) .

20 September 1965   The Santa Ana Register carried an account of the witness's story with the first photo (5, 1, 12). The Bulletin, in Anaheim, also published at least one photograph (12). The Los Angeles NICAP Subcommittee first learned of the case on this day (12).

Two of the three photos were released by the Register to UPI (5).

The witness lent his prints to the Marine Corps investigator (12), who confirms that he did so without hesitation and without verifying the investigator's credentials or asking for a receipt (5). According to NICAP (12), these were the original prints. The Marine advised the witness "not to talk about his sighting (12)."

Among numerous telephone calls, the witness says he received two of special interest: one from a man who identified himself as a colonel attached to NORAD, the other from a man who identified himself as a representative of the Boeing Airplane Co. (5,12). The first caller allegedly asked the witness "to refrain from further comment until they have an opportunity to discuss the matter with him." A tentative date for the discussion [was] set for September 22 -- but no more was ever heard from the 'colonel' (12). The other man identified himself as an "engineer with the L.A. office of Boeing Aircraft... not representing Boeing, but personally interested, [he] asked that his name not be mentioned or the fact that he had phoned. He also suggested that it might be better if [the witness] did not talk about the case (12)." These calls are described in the same way in the Air Force report (5), though in less detail. Source (1) also describes the "NORAD" call, placing it between 18 and 25 September.

20 September to 21 September 1965.   The witness received a number of calls in this period, in addition to the two described above. These included apparent hoax calls and two bomb threats (5). A letter came from a vice-president of McDonnell Aircraft, St. Louis, requesting technical information (7f).

21 September 1965.   The Santa Ana Register "reported that [the witness] had been 'muzzled' by the government. Dale Kindschy of the Public Affairs Office at NORAD's Colorado Springs headquarters said "We can find no one in our organization who contacted [the witness.] This wouldn't normally be in our scope anyway." Col. D. R. Dinsmore, Air Force public information officer in the Pentagon, said, "We have not yet confirmed that [the witness] was contacted by one of our people, but it would be normal procedure if they had (12)."

The fourth (smoke ring) photograph.   The witness mentioned the fourth (smoke ring) photo to very few people up to this point in the chronology. The witness indicated the UFO merely left the area, toward the NE. One reporter recalls his saying that it went off to the right of the road (7d). The Marine report, apparently based on the interview of 18 September (although not prepared and dated until 22 September) says merely that "the object accelerated eastward toward the Saddleback mountains...he lost sight of the object due to the haze and distance (9)." The report carries only the first three photos. It would appear unlikely that the Marine report would have omitted an incident so remarkable as the "smoke ring cloud" had it been mentioned during the interview of 18 September, or during the transfer of the photographs on 20 September.

22 September 1965.   The Marine Corps G-2 investigators returned the original prints (5) and obtained a signed receipt of return (12).

Later in the evening according to the witness, (source 12 places it two or three hours after the photos were returned) "two men, claiming to be from NORAD, arrived at the witness's home and asked to borrow the original Polaroid prints. They showed identification cards identical in appearance to those shown to him by the El Toro Marines. The witness turned the photos over to them. These three original Polaroid prints have never been returned (12)."

The Air Force account of the witness's version of this incident on 23 September is substantially the same, except that the witness mentioned only one visitor: ". . .on the evening of 22 September a man

in civilian clothing visited his house, flashed an identification card, and announced that he was 'an investigator from the North American Defense Command.' [The witness] said that he did not examine the man's credentials closely but recalled that the man's I.D. card was in a special card case about 4" x 5" and that the single I.D. card appeared to consist of two sections--the upper half being orange or pink in color, and the lower half being blue or blue-green in color in the dimness of the porch light. [The witness] stated that he gave the original prints of the photographs to this man, again without receipt (he being a trusting soul), and assumed that he would eventually get the pictures back."

On 15 January 1968, the witness insisted that there had been two men (14).

The original photographs are unrecovered. The fourth "original" was lent to a NICAP investigator and eventually misplaced. A later investigation by NORAD resulted in a denial that any official of theirs had visited the witness. The witness's description of the I.D. card was likened to a gasoline credit card (11).

Some time on 22 September apparently in the evening after the photos had been surrendered, a NICAP member interviewed the witness. Neither this investigator nor any other NICAP member ever saw the three original photos.

Comment on the "NORAD visitors."   The fact that on the day following the alleged visit of the NORAD officers, an Air Force investigator would leave with the clearly recorded impression (5) that only one man had visited the witness is of special interest. Further, a NICAP report dated 25 September 1965, signed by the witness, declares that "a man with a briefcase later called...and said he was...and that he would like to see... [The witness] agreed to loan the pictures to him providing he would...(2, my emphasis W.K.H.).

An attempt to clarify this on 15 January 1968 (14) was made by asking the witness in essence "Why is it that you are now clear on there having been two NORAD visitors, while on the very next day the

Air Force man came away with the idea that a man came up and flashed his card...?"

He immediately replied in effect that only one man showed his card. He repeated that there were two men, in their early thirties, but that one stood back while the other did most of the talking. Since two independent reports from the next three days clearly indicate one visitor, while the witness has since insisted there were two, the "NORAD episode" is still regarded as open to serious question.

J. E. McDonald (15) has found an additional discrepancy concerning the "NORAD visitors." In 15 January 1967 discussions with Dr. McDonald and the Colorado investigator, the witness repeated that the I.D. cards shown him had no photographs of the bearers, although he described them as like those of personnel from El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. McDonald has learned from official sources that all I.D. cards carried photographs at this time. Indications are that if the two visitors did exist in fact, they were imposters.

25 September 1965.   A letter dated 25 September to NICAP in Washington D.C. accompanying supplementary notes contained the first NICAP reference to the smoke ring photograph: "One item of interest is, that [the witness] retained what he calls his ACE IN THE HOLE. A fourth picture. This picture shows clearly the vapor ring that was left by the UFO. [The witness] asked me to keep this information in confidence the night of the interview, however, if nothing came of the mysterious phone call asking [the witness] not to speak, then I would be allowed to pass on this information with a copy of the picture (2)."

A Los Angeles NICAP official wrote to NICAP headquarters: "You will see that there is a fourth photo&150;the smoke ring. I don't know what [the witness's] motive was in holding this picture back in the beginning. Perhaps he thought it was unimportant--and as time went on and the furor began, he hesitated to complicate the situation further and cause more problems for himself. -- He seems to be sick of the publicity and this weekend is moving and getting a new telephone number."

"Blaring headlines (12)" in most local newspapers announce "AIR FORCE LAUNCHES COUNTY UFO PROBE."

Further comment on the fourth (smoke ring) photograph.   We have already seen that (the witness) was allegedly somewhat hesitant in showing the smoke ring photo when he returned to the road department office on 3 August and that he did not mention the smoke ring in early talks with the Marines or the Santa Ana Register. During the early NICAP interview the presence of a fourth photo was not recorded, although the ring was apparently mentioned. During the Air Force interview, the witness not only did not mention the smoke ring or fourth photo, but gave a somewhat different description of the disappearance of the UFO. The Air Force account states: "Just after taking the third picture... [the witness] heard a vehicle approaching from the rear. Concerned that he might have parked in an awkward position, he turned around to see if there was enough road clearance for the vehicle to pass him. Noting that he was on the shoulder of the road, he immediately turned again to look at the UFO but found that it had 'disappeared into the haze' (5)." This is the only account that mentions a diversion by another vehicle. It has been suggested by a NICAP member that this was probably a falsehood. On 5 June 1967 (7a) the witness said he had been advised by NICAP to withhold information from the Air Force to this end. An attempt was made to check this discrepancy in more detail on 15 January 1968 (14) by asking if the incident about the approaching vehicle had been manufactured as a cover for the fourth photo, and the witness denied that he had fabricated any of the testimony to the Air Force. He did not remember any passing vehicle, however (14).

27 September 1965.   The witness sought advice from County District Attorney, Kenneth Williams, regarding the harassment resulting from the UFO report and publicity (12).

4 October 1965.   NICAP headquarters received a preliminary report from their photo analyst, Ralph Rankow, supporting the authenticity of the sighting.

A Saturday in mid-October (7f). The witness, a geodetic engineer, and two NICAP investigators visited the alleged site of the smoke ring photo and "identified the part of the tree appearing in the lower left corner of the picture (7f)." Additional measures and photographs were taken for the purpose of establishing the geometry of the sighting (12).

Clearly, the first allegation is of extreme importance, since the existence of such a peculiar vortex smoke ring above Myford Road, if it could be established from photo four, would be strong evidence in favor of the UFO report. As can be seen in Plate 45, very few physical details (part of a tree and a wire), are available to confirm the Myford Road location of Plate 45. With this in mind, on 15 January 1968 J. E. McDonald, R. Nathan, the Colorado investigator, questioned one of the NICAP investigators in detail about the identification of the tree. It became quite clear that the witness had taken them to the site, and that they had come away convinced by the gross geometry that this was indeed where photo four had been made. This is easy to do: having picked one of the several trees as the one in the photo, one can pick the "spot" within a few feet, using the parallax of the tree and wire (Plate 46). However, it was also clear that the NICAP men and the geodetic engineer had not carried out the extremely critical procedure of comparing the tree, branch by branch and twig by twig, with that on the photograph, and that on geometric grounds it could not be said that it was absolutely certain that the photograph was made on Myford Road. As the NICAP man has pointed out (7f), "trees along the road have since been trimmed back," and it is no longer possible to perform this test.

17 October 1965.   The U.S. Air Force released an official statement disputing the UFO's dimensions as estimated by the witness (12), reading in part: "The...evaluation...is based on enlargements made from copies of the original prints. Although it is not possible to disprove the size of the object from the camera information submitted, it is the opinion of the Air Force that the following is the true case.

"The camera was probably focused on a set distance and not on infinity as the terrain background was blurred... The center white stripe on the road and the object...have the same sharp image. Therefore it is believed that the object was on the same plane as the center white stripe (or closer) to the camera and could not possibly be the size quoted in the report. Using the width of the road as a factor, the size of the object was estimated to be approximately one to three feet in diameter and 15 to 20 feet above the ground (3)."

The statement appears to be based on, and quotes almost directly from, an internal U.S.A.F. "Photo Analysis Report 64-48" requested by Project Blue Book (10). The only significant additional information in the analysis is a final paragraph describing an experiment to reproduce the Santa Ana photos. "A test was conducted by the FTD Photo Analyst and Photo Processing personnel with the results shown on the attached photos... The object seen in the photographs was a 9" in diameter vaporizing tray, tossed in the air approximately 8 to 12 feet high at a distance from the camera of approximately 15 to 20 feet. The result of the test shows a surprising similarity between the object on the test photography and the object on [the witness] photography (10) ."

On 27 October 1965, Maj. Hector Quintanilla, Jr., of Project Blue Book, told the Santa Ana Register that the Air Force had "classified it as a photographic hoax on the basis of extensive photo analysis (12)." Ralph Rankow, NICAP's photo analyst, immediately announced strong disagreement with the Air Force analysis.

1 November 1965.   On the basis of analyses by Rankow and Don Berliner (an aviation magazine photographer in Washington, D.C.) NICAP issued a press release calling the Air Force "hoax" classification "an insult to the intelligence of the public... [The witness] holds a responsible position and has suffered considerable embarrassment upon being accused of being a hoaxer, without evidence... We welcome independent analysis of the photographs by a qualified expert... Our own photographic advisers have found no evidence of

trickery, but if someone else can find such evidence, we would like to settle the matter, one way or the other (12)."

9 December 1965.   The Santa Ana Register quotes a letter from Air Force Col. William E. Poe to Rep. Alphonzo Bell (R-Santa Monica, Calif.) stating "We have not classified the photograph as a hoax (12)."

According to the witness, on 11 October 1967, during the period when our own investigation was beginning, an officer in Air Force uniform came to the witness's home in the evening and presented his credentials. Mindful of past experience, the witness studied them carefully. They gave the name Capt. C. H. Edmonds, of Space Systems Division, Systems Command. The witness reported this encounter within a few days to NICAP; he was sure about the rank and spelling of the name (14).

The man allegedly asked a number of questions, including "Are you going to try to get the originals back?" The witness claims that the man appeared visibly relieved when the witness replied "No." The "officer" also assertedly asked what the witness knew about the "Bermuda triangle" (an area where a number of ships and an aircraft have been lost since the 1800s) (14).

This alleged encounter took place at dusk on the front porch. During the questioning, the witness says he noted a car parked in the street with indistinct lettering on the front door. In the back seat could be seen a figure and a violet (not blue) glow, which the witness attributed to instrument dials. He believed he was being photographed or recorded. In the meantime, his FM multiplex radio was playing in the living room and during the questioning it made "several loud audible pops (14)."

In order to investigate this report, NICAP sent a letter to "Capt. C. H. Edmonds," Space Systems Division (the office from which the original Air Force investigating officer had come), but received no reply. Robert Nathan, an independent investigator, phoned and talked to people who remembered the original Air Force investigator of 1965 but could not identify "Edmonds." Robert J. Low of the Colorado project obtained from the Air Force data on officers of similar name.

The list contained four "C. H. Edmonds," but none with the correct rank and spelling. All were of rather high rank and none should have had any connection with the Santa Ana case (14).

The significance of this report is still unclear but suggestive.

Other alleged inquiries.   During an interview with the witness, 15 January 1968, he indicated that he believes his phone had been tapped, that many friends had reported they could not reach him on occasion, and that the phone company found that only his wires had been tampered with. He also stated that on three or four occasions his neighbors had advised him that men in military uniform had come to his door during the day, when he was not there.

Analysis:

Rather than recount in detail the long series of interviews, experiments, and questions that were involved in analyzing the Santa Ana case, only the value of the case in terms of the UFO problem and the possible reality of extraordinary flying objects will be considered here.

From the point of view of the Colorado study the principal question of concern is: does a case have probative value in establishing the reality of unusual aircraft? In a case like this, where both the observer and photographs clearly allege an extraordinary vehicle, a second question is, of course, automatically implied: does the case represent a fabrication or was the object a true unknown? But it is not in general our purpose to make a judgment on that question. We are concerned only with establishing evidence as to whether or not there exist extraordinary flying objects.

In that context, this case is equivocal.

In the course of my study I was able to simulate effectively the first three photographs by suspending a model by a thread attached to a rod resting on the roof of a truck and photographing it (Plate 47). Without assuming the truth or untruth of the witness's story this has led me to conclude that the case is of little probative value.

Conclusion:

The evidence for the reality of the UFO is not sufficiently strong to have probative value in establishing the existence of extraordinary flying objects. The strongest arguments against the case are the clouds in photo four and the inconsistent early records regarding the "NORAD" visitors. The photos themselves contain no geometric or physical data that permit a determination of distance or size independent of the testimony. Thus the witness's claims are the essential ingredients in the case. The case must remain inconclusive.

Although the authenticity of the UFO in this case is still open to question owing to internal inconsistencies in the early testimony, and inconsistency of the photographs and weather data, this case is still held to be of exceptional interest because it is so well documented. This is a result of early attention from the U. S. Marine Corps, the U. S. Air Force, NICAP and the press. Regardless of the existence or non-existence of extraordinary flying objects, this case supplies good documentation of the dealings between our society and a man who claims to have seen one.

Sources of Information:

1. NICAP report form and handwritten narrative, 22 September 1965.

2. File of miscellaneous documents supplied by NICAP including narrative report, 22 September through 17 December 1965.

3. File of miscellaneous correspondence supplied by NICAP including several narrative letters, 24 September 1965 through 11 January 1966.

4. Basic Report LAW AFR 200-2. Report to USAF based on inter- views, 23 September 1965.

5. Narrative Report and Assessment. Report to USAF based on interviews, 23 September 1965.

6. Re-evaluation of shadow circumstances. Report to NICAP by NICAP investigator, 23 July 1966.

7. Hartmann, W. K. Miscellaneous telephone interviews and Correspondence, 5 June 1965.

1. Telephone conversation with witness, 5 June 1967.

2. Visit to the site on Myford Road, Santa Ana, 9 September 1967.

3. Telephone conversation and correspondence 28 September 1967; interview 16 January 1968.

4. Telephone conversation 18 October 1967.

5. Telephone conversation 22 November 1967.

6. Correspondence 5 November 1967, and 25 November 1967.

7. Phone conversation 11 January 1968.

8. Interviews at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, and others, 15 January 1968.

8. Nathan, R.

9. U. S. Marine Corps G-2 Investigation Report, El Toro Marine Air Facility, 22 September 1965.

10. Photo Analysis Report requested by Major H. Quintanilla for U. S. Air Force.

11. Letter from Chief of Staff, NORAD.

12. Chronology of Events, received by W. K. H. 18 November 1967. Prepared in 1967 and based on original NICAP files, 1965-67.

13. Crow, Loren W. Special report to Colorado project on weather conditions related to Santa Ana sighting, 4 December 1967.

14. Joint meeting in Los Angeles with witness and other interested parties, 15 January 1968; interview with the witness at Myford Road, 16 January 1968.

15. McDonald, J. E. Private communication; correspondence with Polaroid Corporation, 1968.

16. Vallee, J. and Vallee J. Challenge to Science, Chicago: Regnery, 1966, pp. 30, 43.