AD_HOC_REPORT_SEPT_23_1980.pdf
A report by a panel of non-government scientists on the Sep 22, 1979 Vela satellite event
The conclusions of a panel of non-government scientists as to whether the Sep 22, 1979 Vela Satellite detection event was a nuclear explosion.
Document date: 1980-05-23
Department: Scientific panel
Author: Panel of non-government scientists at various universities
Document type: report
pages: 20
Archivist's Notes: Good quality document with limited blacking out. 'Secret' mark over-stamped with 'Unclassified'. Text and graphs.
|
20 page document dated May 23, 1980 about Vela Satellite September 22, 1979
Document Title: AD NOC PANEL REPORT ON THE SEPTEMBER 22 EVENT
Pge 1: Headed ‘Background’
A panel of nongovernment scientists was organized by Dr Frank Press, Science Adviser to the President and Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. Their aim was to determine the likelihood of the light signal recorded by Vela was a nuclear explosion. This page details the
panel’s working instructions.
to be continued...
|
Pg 2: Headed ‘Summary of Conclusions’
Outlines 4 points that the panel found, which leans toward ‘zoo events’ possibly small meteoroid impacting the satellite.
(HOWEVER…the panel begin by saying … “based on lack of persuasive evidence”…which from page 1 we find that the persuasive
geophysical evidence was meant to come from the Naval Research Laboratory which then never got back to the panel in time!!!).
Pg 3: Detail of the function of the two bhangmeters (light sensors) on the satellite and description of the light sources they pick up.
Pre-amble of graphed information that follows.
Pg 4 to 8: Graphs from the bhangmeters to show the differences in the types of light sources.
Pg 9 & 10: Headed ‘The September 22 Event’
Explanation that the two bhangmeters show consistencies with nuclear explosion theory but the panel states that they must also show that the signal
doesn’t have additional characteristics. Question raised of light source close to earth’s surface or close to satellite.
to be continued...
|
Pg 11: graph
Pg 12 & 13: blanked out pages.
Pg14: Discusses a discrepancy between the two bhangmeters leading to other theories..meteoroid or zoo events. New section – ‘Alternate
Explanations of Sept 22 Event’. Discounts likelihood of lightning, other satellites reflecting etc., other than meteoroid.
Pg 15: Detail of meteoroid likelihood. New Section – ‘Search for supporting data’.
Evidence one would look for to support nuclear explosion theory.
Pg 16: Notes that no EMP or magnetic disturbance data was known to the panel.
The assessment of the search for nuclear debris and data from the other geophysical sources. Debris Collection has a section blacked out. Mention of
impact of the weather.
New Zealand’s positive result regarding radiation was proven negative. Negative results do not provide conclusive evidence that a
nuclear explosion did not occur.
Accoustic Data Collection detailed..inconclusive/unrelated to the event.
Pg 17: Areas of information are blacked out regarding Hydroaccoustic Data.
Discussion of TID (Traveling Ionospheric Disturbance).Considered not useful information.
Pg 18 & 19: New Section: ‘Comments on the Nature of the Problem and Our Conclusions’. Explains the inherent problems in coming to a
definite conclusion…the last paragraph being…. ‘it is our collective judgment that the sept 22 signal was probably not from a nuclear
explosion.’
Pg 20: List of the Panel Members.
|
|
