It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FOIA: OSI Investigation on Leak of Classified Info Regarding 24APR49 WS Sighting

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
NM_APR_24_1949.pdf
Investigation of Leaked Information of Flying Discs WSPG, NM after Viking test on 25AUG49
Investigation on the classified leak of disc sighting information at White Sands resulting in an LA Times article entitled "Reporters hear disc tales at White Sands" and numerous other newspaper articles

Document date: 1949-09-21
Department: USAF IG OSI
Author: Numerous Contributors
Document type: Investigation File
pages: 50

 

Archivist's Notes: Most documents are legible, this pdf is the investigation of how classified information pertaining to a 24APR49 disc sighting by C.D. Moore and four others at White Sands Proving grounds was leaked to members of the press during an AUG 1949 Viking rocket test when the press were admitted to witness the test. This leak resulted in numerous newspaper articles, and radio reports. The last page still calls the Moore sighting Unidentified. Very informative pdf on how the military was witnessing the disc phenomena and were still actively trying to prevent the release of information regarding these events. The comments of some of the researchers and scientists will open some eyes.
 




posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
The fact that people were seeing "discs" at WSPG isn't the news here, though a careful reading of all the documents will show that the very lack of surprise by anyone in an official position shows just how widespread these reports must have been. What should be noted is the vigor of the investigation into these "leaks".

While the military has downplayed the whole UFO question, especially how seriously they viewed this. It becomes evident when reading these documents that this is not the truth. They obviously had a "no talk" policy that everyone was supposed to follow. Even the Public Information Office couldn't handle such things locally, and in one document assured the investigators that they always referred these type of questions to an office in D.C.

Yet, the Navy seemed a bit more lax about these type of things. One has to wonder if the Army Air Corps had a vivid memory of two years previously being "burnt" with the Roswell story. No matter which position a person has towards the Roswell Event, you have to admit that it was a public relations nightmare for the AAC.

While there is no smoking gun here, only a second hand report of lights, it is another story that helps to paint the backdrop depicting just what reporting conditions were like for the military. And how the Army, by so vigorously pursuing this, was in the business of intimidating people to silence. Note how even the civilian newspaper reporters and radio personality were "nervous" when talking with representatives of the Army over this.

Overall, I feel these documents shows us a great deal about the early mindset of the military over what appears to have been an ongoing and widespread phenomenon throughout. We are forced to ask ourselves, if there was nothing to UFOs, why so much effort spent on containment? You don't have such a policy, and work so hard at enforcing it, if there's nothing to it in the first place.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Here is another very special document. It is interesting that it seems to be an investigation into who leaked information about a UFO sighting and this information appearing in an article published in the Times, but the person involved in the first report should raise a few eyebrows. It was first stated that it involved a reported sighting by a C.D. Moore, but in fact it was Charles B. Moore of General Mills Research, as printed on page 10.

If you are familiar with the Roswell incident, that name should ring a bell. Charles B. Moore is the person who has become a debunker in the case of the Roswell crash and claims that it was one of his Mogul Balloons that was recovered and not a flying disc. He has published a book about his theory and has never tried to hide the fact he reported seeing a UFO. I just never knew that his report was so public and part of an investigation as described in this document.

One other thing to note from this document is the use of the term “flying discs” as a general term, similar to how we use the acronym UFO today. This is similar to the term used for the Roswell Crash. From his statement on page 9, Charles Moore describes the object as white and spherical and was seen during observation of a weather balloon, yet it is still classified as a flying disc.

Some parts of the document are illegible, which are probably the original reports of the UFO’s, but are attached and described earlier.

It doesn’t appear to have a conclusion as to who leaked the information, but it is interesting that they considered it to be enough of an issue to pursue it.

Related Links:
Wikipedia article on Charles B. Moore



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Good catch on the C.D. Moore being Charles B. Moore. A case of a second look being a good thing.

In another thread here, the Fuzzy Star Thread, the story of Donald Menzel almost echoes this one. He sees something that as an astronomer he can't identify,and it bothers him so much that four days later he makes a detailed report. Yet, he goes on to become the governments foremost debunker.

A person can certainly speculate that they both switched sides on the issue much as if they had been convinced by the government somehow.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


On the 'switching sides' perhaps after their sightings they were 'brought into the fold' so to speak.

(oddly I couldn't reply to your comment using the 'quote' button - it said "Sorry but you don't have access to this forum". Is that on purpose?)

HEY! The report form with the approx 25 questions is also used in this report. The basic questions match, but on this form there is some extra detail added to the question which I added below.

The items I couldn't read are seen on page 38. (I bolded those missing from my first transcription)

================
2. Exact time of observation (local)

3. Place of observation:
(Map Coordinates)

4. Position of observer (air, car, bldg, location of - give details):

5. What attracted attention to object:

6. Number of objects and sketch of formation or grouping:

7. Apparent size (compare to known object, i.e. sun, moon, thumb or fist at arms length):

9. Shape (give graphic description - compare with known objects):

10. Altitude (Angle of elevation above horizon - 0 degrees at horizon, 90 degrees overhead):

11. Direction from observer (Angle clockwise from North):

12. Distance from observer (Distance to town, bldg, etc., over which object appeared to be):

13. Direction of flight of object (a):

14. Time in sight:

15. Speed (time to cover given angular distance):

16. Sound and odor

17. Trail (color, length, width, persistence, etc.)

18. Luminosity (visible by reflection, incandescence, other - degree of brilliance):

19. Projections (fins, wings, rods, antennae, canopies, etc.):

20. Maneuvers (turns, climbs, dives, etc. - sketch of flight path):

21. Manner of disappearance

22. Effect on clouds:


23. Additional information concerning object:

24. Weather conditions and light at time of sighting:

25. Did observer wear glasses, specially polaroid glasses, at time of sighting, or was object viewed through canopy, window, or other transparent material?

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Another early debunker was Dr. J. Allen Hynek who was also an astronomer and worked as a consultant on all three Projects Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book, and later changed his opinion from a skeptic to a believer and continued to research the subject and founded CUFOS. People have switches sides in both directions. I think peoples opinions can change drastically depending on who is paying their salary.


[edit on 11/24/2007 by Hal9000]



new topics

top topics
 
5

log in

join