Saturday, November 18, 2017

Committee members of the VFSRS/VUFORS : 1959 - 1972


Between 1959 and 1972, there were over thirty individuals who served on the committee of the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society/ Victorian UFO Research Society. In this post I identify these individuals and the committee positions which they held, and provide information about a number of them which will be new to most blog readers. 

Some individuals such as Peter Norris; Paul Norman and Judith Magee, played a major role in the development of the society during these years. Others came and went. Sadly, I am aware of a number of such people as Judith Magee, William (Bill) Stapleton, and Paul Norman who are deceased.

Judith Mary Magee

Committee, Dec 1959 – Nov 1962; Vice President  & Programs Officer, May 1964 – Dec 1965; Secretary, Dec 1966 – Dec 1967; Vice President, Oct 1968 – Dec 1972.

‘Vice President: Mrs Judith Magee has been a member of the V.F.S.R.S. since 1958 and a committee member since 1959. She completed a secretarial course at Brighton Technical School and worked in a Melbourne radio station and bank prior to joining the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service in March 1944. After demobilisation in 1946 she joined Australian National Airways as an air hostess and in 1947 became the only woman finalist in the Sun flying scholarship. Since her marriage in 1948 she has worked as a diathermy operator, mannequin and saleswoman.

Mrs Magee believes that flying saucer research should take a ‘middle-of-the-road’ attitude and be accurately presented to the public in a factual manner.’

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer Review No 4, Dec 1965.]

Magee wrote a number of articles for magazines, including:

‘”Nests” and “Landing pads.” AFSR No 2, Jul 1970, pp 12-15.

‘Are the UFOnauts gradually revealing their presence?’ AFSR Vol 1, Mar 1970, pp 8,9 & 14.

‘UFO activity along the NE coast of Australia.’ Flying Saucer Review (FSR) Vol 11 No 5 p14.

‘Queensland again.’ FSR. 1966. Vol 12 No 2, p26.

‘UFO over the Mooraduc Road.” FSR 1972. Vol 18 No 6 p6.

Paul Norman

Investigations & Sightings Officer, May 1964; Public Relations Officer, May 1965- Dec 1970; Public Relations Officer & Sightings Investigations Officer, Feb 1972. Public Relations Officer, Dec 1972.

‘Public Relations Officer, Mr Paul Norman was born and educated in the United States. With the exception of six years in the U.S. Navy and a short period as a Publisher’s Representative, he served in various positions up to Hydro-Electric Power Project Superintendent with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and is Charge Engineer in Thermal-Electric Stations.

He has been interested in the U.F.O. phenomenon since 1953, after observing one of the mystery objects hover over a power station in Middle Tennessee. His interest was intensified when Major Keyhoe was cut off the C.B.S. Coast to Coast Television network, while trying to tell American people about U.F.O. investigations and a few moments later an Air Force spokesman stood before millions of TV viewers and said “You Air Force would not withhold the facts.” At that time, Mr Norman joined the fight to end the policy of public deception.’

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer Review No 7, Dec 1967.]

Paul Norman had interactions in the USA. According to Ann Druffel's book 'Firestorm' (2002) about the late professor James E McDonald, ‘Paul Norman corresponded with McDonald shortly after McDonald's public entry into the field, and the two exchanged UFO reports and other material. In early May 1967 Paul Norman came to the states to visit relatives and made arrangements to visit McDonald in Tucson. Norman first visited Allen Hynek and Vallee in Chicago, principally to discuss a couple of UFOs which had been taken by reliable witnesses in Australia, then went on to Boulder, Colorado where he met with some of the staff of the Condon committee…for Condon’s staff had staff also had interest in cases worldwide.

Norman brought key Australian cases with him, discussed them in an eight hour meeting, and let the staff photocopy them. The next day, a Saturday, he discussed the cases for another ten hours with Dr David Saunders, a psychologist on Condon’s staff, then he went on to Tucson.’

Norman instigated the visit to Australia, in 1967, of Professor James E McDonald. Norman and other VFSRS committee members arranged for McDonald to interview a number of witnesses to Australian sightings. For summaries of these Australian McDonald interviews, click here. 

Norman wrote a number of magazine articles during the period 1959-1972. Included amongst these were the following:

‘The Condon Report in Bits and Pieces.’ AFSRS Vol 1, Mar 1970 (Vic) pp 2, 3 & 19.

‘A fierce new look at Unidentified Flying Objects.’ AFSRS Vol 2, Oct 1964 pp 15-18.

‘The electro-magnetic effect of the UFO.’ AFSRS Vol 4, Dec 1965, pp 3-5.

‘UFOs and the mystery signals from outer space.’ AFSR No 8, Oct 1968, pp 2-3.

‘Gravity powered objects.’ FSR 1965, Vol 11, No 2, p20.

Norman investigated a number of Australian cases, including: Burkes Flat (1966); Frankston (1972); Eaton Ridge (1965); Zanthus (1968,) including numerous Victorian sightings. He forwarded Australian sightings onto NICAP in the USA, some of which appeared in the NICAP ‘UFO Investigator.’

Peter E Norris

President 1959 - 1972.

'Mr Peter E Norris, LL.B has headed this society since its foundation in 1957. He was born in 1932, educated at Wesley College and graduated Bachelor of Law from Melbourne University in 1958.

He is an elected councillor of the City of Chelsea and a member of at least six other civic bodies in that City.

The V.F.S.R.S. has much for which to thank Mr Norris whose skills in manoeuvring the society through the difficulties inherent in such groups has shown intelligent leadership which has done much to gain the respect of the people and made the subject of Flying Saucers respectable.’

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer review No 3, May 1965.]

Norris was an APRO representative, and numerous articles appeared in the APRO Bulletin, which were based on material submitted by Norris.

Peter Norris, Geoff Rumpf and Ray Mountford conducted a field investigation of the 10 March 1961, Albury, NSW sighting. [AFSR No 5, Jul 1961, pp 1-2.] 

Geoffrey S Rumpf

Librarian, Dec 1959; Investigations & Sightings Officer, May 1964; Sightings Investigations Officer, May 1965 – Jul 1966; Vice President & Sightings Investigations Officer, Dec 1966.

‘Vice president and Sightings Investigations Mr Rumpf has been a member of V.F.S.R.S. since the inaugural meeting in February 1957. He was the society’s first librarian and is the society’s first sightings investigations officer. He was educated at Scotch College, Melbourne and has worked at the University of Melbourne as a research assistant and has been employed in many fields of selling.
He is currently employed as a Publisher’s Representative. During the last six years he has travelled extensively overseas. Mr Rumpf is active in the sport of pistol shooting and is president of the Mountain District Pistol Club.’

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer Review No 6, Dec 1966.]

Rumpf investigated a number of Victorian sightings including Hallam (1967.)

Sylvia Suttton

Secretary, 1961 – Dec 1965.

‘Secretary: Mrs Sylvia Sutton joined the V.F.S.R.S. in 1959 and became secretary in 1961. In 1965 she was appointed secretary of the federation Commonwealth Aerial Phenomena Investigation Organisation (C.A.P.I.O.)

Mrs Sutton was educated at University High School and a city business college. Later, she worked in a city insurance company, on ledgers, statistical records and dissection of same, until her marriage in 1941. She is the wife of a bank manager and has a son and a daughter. Other interests have been musical studies and a short course in free-lance journalism.’

[Source: AFSR No 5 Jul 1966.]

Neville Thornhill

Sightings Investigations Officer, Dec 1967 – Oct 1968.

‘Sightings Investigations Officer: Mr Neville Thornhill was born in South Africa and migrated to Australia at the age of fourteen where he continued his education at Brighton Grammar School. He later studied engineering at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Swinburne Technical College.

His sporting activities have been many and varied and he is currently an active member of the Mountain District Pistol Club. He is married and has two small children.

His interest in U.F.O’s was aroused by his engineering mind and an earnest desire to assist in solving the problem.

[Source: Australian Flying Saucer Review No 8, Oct 1968.]

Thornhill wrote at least one VFSRS article. ‘UFO Investigation’ AFSR No 1, Mar 1970, pp 5,6 & 12.

Other committee members
Aitchison, Harry

Technical Advisor, May 1964- Dec 1965.Committee, Dec 1966; Tape Librarian Dec 1967 – Oct 1968.

Anderson, Albert

Treasurer, Oct 1968.

Anderson, Morris

Treasurer, Dec 1967.

Bezzi, Claude

Committee, Dec 1959 – Nov 1962.

Bristol, Les

Librarian, Oct 1968 – Jul 1970; Committee, Feb 1972 – Dec 1972.

Browning, David

Public Relations Officer, May 1964; Assistant Sightings Investigations Officer, Oct 1968.

Carstairs, Delma

A/g Secretary, Jul 1970.

Coutts, Rodney

Committee, Dec 1959.

Farmer, Dorothy.

Treasurer, Dec 1965 – Dec 1966.

Frances-Williams, Kit

Committee, Dec 1966. Assistant Secretary, Dec 1967 – Oct 1968; Minutes Secretary, Mar 1970 – Dec 1970; Committee, Feb 1972.

Gillman, Dorothy

Secretary, Dec 1959 – Jan 1962; Treasurer, May 1964.

Godden, Ian

Committee, Dec 1959; Librarian & Magazine Editor, May 1964; Librarian, Apr 1960 – Nov 1962.

Hall, Norman

Assistant Librarian, Dec 1959; Committee, Apr 1960 – Jun 1962.

Harrison, June

Secretary, Oct 1968; Assistant Secretary, Mar 1970; Publications Officer, Jul 1970 – Feb 1972.

Leschen, Richard

Sightings Investigations Officer, Dec 1972.

Marrow, Rodney

Librarian, Feb 1972 – Dec 1972.

Mountford, Ray

Committee, Nov 1962.

Neville, Prue

Membership Secretary, Dec 1967.

Shackelford, Jim

Committee, Nov 1962.

Spencer, Ben

Vice President, Dec 1959 – Apr 1960; Vice-President  & Treasurer, Sep 1960- Nov 1962.

Stapleton, William

Sightings Investigation Officer, Mar 1970- Dec 1970; Committee, Feb 1972.

Stapleton wrote at least one piece: ‘The Dartmoor Phenomenon.’ AFSRS No 2, Jul 1970, pp 17-18, and was involved in an extensive investigation into the 1972 Maureen Puddy, Frankston CE3, and possible abduction.

 [Source: Australian Flying Saucer review No 5, Jul 1966.]

Sutton, Wendy

Librarian, May 1965 – Dec 1966.

Tarplee, William

Secretary, Feb 1972 – Dec 1972.

Traverston, Pat

Assistant Secretary, Dec 1972.

Valente, Cathy

Librarian, Dec 1967.

Wilkinson, Albert

Treasurer, Jul 1970; Committee, Feb 1972.

Yates, Clive

A/g Treasurer, Feb 1972 – Dec 1972.

Friday, November 17, 2017

Westall, the Department of Supply and Mr 'X' - a short part two


In a previous post I discussed what we know of a tantilising story from the son and daughter of a high official in the former Australian Department of Supply, in relation to his knowledge of the 6 April 1966 Westall incident.

New material

Over my years of searching government archive material held by such agencies as the National Archives of Australia (NAA) and the National Library of Australia (NLA) I have learnt that these organisations are constantly making new material available. I thought it would be worth my while, spending some time, doing yet another search for any further material on Mr 'X.' This search proved to be very fruitful.

I now have found new material which:

1. Provides his University results from the years 1930-1934, when he attended University in Sydney and completed both a Bachelor's degree in Engineering (1st class honours) and a Bachelor of Science degree (2nd class honours.)

2. Gives a photograph of him in 1935. In order to ascertain whether or not anyone could deduce the identity of Mr X from this photograph, I used a number of web based reverse image sites to check if it is possible to determine the source of this image and thus reveal his identity. I was unable to find Mr X's real name from this image, and this is why I provide the photograph here. If you use "copy image address" you will only get "Capture_Photo_1935.JPG."

3. Advises that he was appointed as an Engineer in the Postmaster General's Department in 1937.

4. Shows that he moved to the Department of Civil Aviation in 1946, and became a Senior Airways Engineer.

All of this is consistent with the account of his career as conveyed in 2010 by his daughter.

5. I have also found some leads concerning positions within the general area of what became the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics area of the Department of Supply in 1967. In 1963 it appears to have been titled Aircraft and Guided Weapons Supply Branch, Department of Supply. Unfortunately, the archive material for this era, is currently not yet available. I have submitted a request to be advised when this material becomes publicly available. Hopefully, this will confirm the position within the Department of Supply which Mr X held on 6 April 1966.

I wish to thank my Sydney research associate, who wishes to remain anonymous, for giving me the idea to look in a particular part of the Australian government archives, where I located this new information.

If, perchance, Mr X's daughter or son reads this, I would appreciate if they would get in direct contact with me at

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Westall, the Department of Supply and Mr 'X'


In a Facebook post dated 10 November 2017, and titled 'The troubled Public Servant,' Westall researcher Shane Ryan, reported that in 2010 he was contacted by a woman with some inside knowledge about the 1966 Westall, Melbourne incident, gained from her father.

In the post, Shane gave details of the contents of a number of emails from the woman (one from 2010, one from 2012) and her brother (one from 2012). The 2012 emails concerned the HIBAL hypothesis, but the important email is the 2010 one from the daughter, of the person I am choosing to refer to as Mr 'X.'

I have decided to annotate her words, rather than addressing points raised at the end of her text.

The email

'I am writing to you because I hadn't realised there were so many other witnesses to an event that my father was involved with in 1966. My father was the Assistant Controller of Aircraft, Weapons and Guided Missiles with the Department of Supply in Melbourne.

1. Shane found a Department of Supply Bulletin, in the National Library of Australia which confirmed that Mr X was indeed the Assistant Controller of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply in August 1967. We have not been able to confirm his position on 6 April 1966, the date of the Westall incident.

' He was a brilliant intellectual, Dux of High School, First class honours in Engineering and a science degree in Electronics all in 3 years. I mention this because he was not a fool, or someone who would dream up what he saw.

2. A check of the National Archives of Australia revealed Mr X's war records, which indicate he was an Engineer.

'I do not know how he was involved in the sighting of the object. He was, however told (by someone senior to him) that if he were to speak of this incident to anyone, he would lose his job.

3. A search of the Internet reveals that the immediate senior of the Assistant Controller of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply was in fact the Controller, of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply. On 6 April 1966, this was one Ian Bowman Fleming. He held the position between 1958-1967. Fleming was the director of the project which produced Australia's first unmanned target aircraft, Jindivik. Unfortunately, we are unable to seek any knowledge about Westall from Fleming as he passed away in 1993.

'He used to say that knew what he saw, he was very angry that this event was not seen as an opportunity. He was intimidated on a regular basis about what he saw by other officials and told that a person in his position could not be taken seriously if he were to speak of it. He was a respected point of contact for the Americans, French and Italians as they were all in the market for selling us their aircraft.

4. Here then, is an intriguing statement: 'this event was not seen as an opportunity.' One possible interpretation was a UFO was involved, with a potential opportunity to learn about advanced propulsion systems.

'I knew about the object he saw from very early on in the event, and I was also told not to speak of it to my school friends, teachers or anyone.

5. Earlier Mr X's daughter wrote: 'I do not know how he was involved in the sighting of the object.' Here she states: 'I knew about the object he saw.'  These appear to be contradictory statements. Did he see the object, or simply know of the incident? Was he at Westall that day? We will perhaps never know.

'I was 10 and after my father said we were not to speak of it, my mother continued to talk to me, mostly because of the torment my father appeared to be going through over this incident.

'My father came to work for the Department of Supply after he was approached for this position while manager of Civil Aviation in Sydney. He held this position from 1960-1968 then continued on in the position in Canberra until his early death in 1970.

6. Neither Shane nor I have been able to independently verify that Mr X held the position of Assistant Controller of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply between 1960-1968. We did however confirm that according to the 1966 Sands and McDougall directory, Mr X lived in Melbourne in 1966 and then via the electoral rolls confirmed he lived in Canberra in 1969 (the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply moved to Canberra in December 1968 according to the Canberra Times newspaper of 27 December 1968 page 8.)

 'There may be some information to be found at Department of Supply. I'm so pleased to know there really was substance to what my father saw and I wish he were here today to know there were many others who felt as he did. He did a lot of secret work during the WW2 so he was very good at maintaining security for the good of the nation.'

In summary

The research by Shane and I indicates that Mr X lived in Melbourne in 1966; was the Assistant Controller of the Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronics Supply Division of the Department of Supply in August 1967; was an engineer, and moved to Canberra in December 1968. Unfortunately, neither Mr or Mrs X are alive today to directly discuss his knowledge.

I understand from Shane that he has had no contact with Mr X's daughter or son since 2012.

What do I make of all the above? It is no doubt a fascinating story, but it is hearsay. A clinical definition of hearsay is 'the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.'

Although I am aware of the identity of Mr X; and his son and daughter; out of courtesy to Shane Ryan, my research hands are tied. However, I would urge Shane to attempt to recontact both the son and daughter and see if any additional information may have come to light since 2012.


In a Facebook post dated 12 November 2017, Shane provided us all with additional information.

'In December 2012 some months after receiving an email from him, I was telephoned out of the blue by the son of the Department of Supply senior officer. He was calling on a mobile from a McDonald's in rural Queensland. I think now that he was checking me out over the phone as much as anything. However, he wanted me to know that as senior, and as sceptical, a public servant as his father definitely was, he was profoundly affected by what had happened at Westall.

He was of the opinion that his father had been at Westall as part of the response to the event. He even recalled the floor number of the building his father worked at in Canberra, which had some connection with D-Branch - which was a code for ASIO. Because of the son's work with Australian Federal Police intelligence, he explained that there was still some sensitivities for him in relation to all of this. He promised to call back with (sic) 48 hours...and I am still waiting for that call.'

My comments:

Now, let me say at the outset, that all of the above may be true, however a number of questions arise to which we currently do not have answers.

1. How did Shane know that the individual calling was Mr X's son?
2. How did Shane know that the call came from a McDonald's in rural Queensland? One can only surmise it was because the individual calling him, told him this?
3. Did the individual inform Shane of the floor number of the building in Canberra? Was Shane ever able to confirm this was the location of ASIO in Canberra in 1966?
4. I can understand that it would not have been possible for Shane to confirm the individual's statement about working for the Australian Federal Police. But, did the individual offer to produce any documentation to support this claim?

I appreciate, that for some individuals reading this blog, my insistence on fact checking and verifying information supplied, may well annoy them. However, think on this, we are being told that there was a government involvement and coverup in the Westall incident - a big story - surely this should cross checked in fine detail?

Additional material:

For a look at the work on a circular aircraft for the RAAF, by Squadron Leader Gordon Waller in 1966 click here.

For a look at an earlier post about ASIO and Australian UFO groups, click here.

For a detailed look at the involvement of the former Australian government Department of Supply, click here,  and here. 

Australian UAP from earlier years


From time to time, I am contacted by individuals who tell me of UAP sightings from earlier years. Other people send me newspaper accounts of such events. These are all most welcome, as they add to our knowledge of previously unreported observations. This post describes two such recently submitted items.

Sighting from the destroyer 'Anzac'

A long time friend of mine, who lives in Tasmania, sent me a clipping from 'The Advocate' newspaper, Tasmania, dated 21 October 2017, and titled 'Possible Experience of UFO.'

This 'Letter to the Editor' read:

'Growing up I didn't believe in aliens, but that belief changed in a flash.

In the 1970's I was sitting out on deck of the destroyer Anzac just after sunrise, getting fresh air before duty. We were heading to a destination in the South Pacific, doing about 18 knots.

The sea was as smooth as glass and no-one else was on deck. A strange feeling suddenly came over me. I looked up and above the funnel was a shimmering mass the size of a medium car, making no sound. It looked like it was generating great power.

Image courtesy
I stood up and it shot away at great speed in long zig-zag motion, just above sea level, towards the horizon. From that day I knew we were not alone in the Universe.'

The letter was signed Leon Forrest, Burnie. I have referred a copy of the letter to Phil Polden, TUFOIC, Tasmania for his information and comparison with anything in the TUFOIC records.

An Internet check revealed that in 1961 the 'Anzac' was refurbished as a training vessel, and remained in service until 1974, and was eventually scrapped in 1975. This indicates that the sighting may be dated between 1970 and 1974. The ship sailed between Australia, Papua New Guinea,and various ports in the South Pacific on training missions.

An unusual encounter near Murray Bridge, South Australia

I received an email from an individual describing an encounter near Murray Bridge, South Australia. 

'The night was on a Saturday. When I was travelling along Jervois road towards Murray Bridge. Approximately 11 kms south of Murray Bridge. I observed a UFO stationary over the river Murray. This would have been about ninety meters above the water. I stopped my car. When a friend of mine drove past. I wanted him to also observe what I had seen, so proceeded to try to chase him down. However after travelling after him for about a km rethought, about what I had seen  and that I would have to chase him for a considerable distance to catch him. 

So I returned to where I had seen The UFO. On arrival at the site the vehicle had disappeared. Because of a hill being in between me and the river. I am unsure if the craft had descended below the level of sight, behind the hill down toward the surface of the river or departed from the area. On reflection I now believe they would have been going to collect water from the river.

The vessel was very big. With no noise that was discernable from my location. The size was something that particularly struck attention. It would have been larger than a normal AFL football field. The shape being that of flying saucers,with one inverted above the other. Around the outer circumference were a number of orange lights. Since that time I have observed photos of nuclear reactor core. I now believe the orange lights were in fact nuclear reactor cores from memory I recall there would have been about eight on the side of the craft that was visible from where I observed it. The craft would have weighed many thousands of tonnes,had it been constructed of earthly materials. However it appeared weightless.sitting absolutely stationary. 

I proceeded to the location of the Murray  Bridge Police station to report what I had seen. The Officer taking my statement was taking the whole thing a bloody joke  so I walked out and  have never mentioned the incident to anyone since that time.

I believe this craft would be able to travel through space at speed that would certainly make interstellar travel a very real possibility. We are not alone. These beings have nothing to fear from us. Our fastest rockets are snails in comparison to this craft. The speed of light and beyond.'

Another Murray Bridge sighting in July 1967

I found this a fascinating observation, and made more remarkable in that I already had details of a 5 July 1967 sighting from near Murray Bridge. I found details of this second event in the RAAF UAP files - file series A703, control symbol 580/1/1 part 8, page 178, and following.  This may be summarised as follows:

On 5 July 1967 at 0057hrs local time, a Mr P P Langford of Robby's Aerial Services was travelling on the main Murray-Bridge to Karoonda Road, and was about 5 miles NNE of Murray Bridge at the time.

It was a clear night sky, but there was heavy ground fog.

Suddenly the vehicle's radio became full of static, increased in intensity and became a high pitched whine. He turned the radio off. About 100-150 yards later the vehicle's motor simply stopped. The ignition key was still in the on position, but the dashboard warning lights, i.e. oil, temperature etc came on.

NAA file series A703 control symbol 580/1/1 Part 8

Langford then reported noticing a distinct break in the fog where stars were visible in the sky. A large, dark shadow was visible above the road and between two bands of fog, at a height estimated as 60 feet. Above this shadow, which he estimated to be ten feet thick, was a greyish-blue glow.

By the time Langford got out of the vehicle to investigate, both the shadow and the light had gone. There had been no associated sound at all. The witness got back into his vehicle, tried the ignition switch and the motor started. Turning on the radio he found that the static had gone.

If any blog readers can add further details to either of the above events, I would be most grateful. 

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Westall - a dissenting view


We continue to hear references to the 6 April 1966, Westall school incident, in a variety of media outlets. Unfortunately, for us, these outlets, are simply using the event for their own gain. In almost all such instances, this is simply a matter of ratings and entertainment. UFOs are very newsworthy for this purpose. 

In my opinion, continuing to try and raise the profile of the incident, via radio, television, podcasts, newspapers, and websites, in the hope of officially confirming the nature of the incident, is doomed to failure. 

The year’s long search, for official Australian government documentary proof, has been unsuccessful. In addition, no one from the Australian Department of Defence (Army, Navy, and Air Force); ASIO, or any other government department has ever come forward to confirm what happened at Westall that day. These negative facts continue to fuel a ‘conspiracy’ perspective, when they may merely indicate, that there is no such ‘evidence.’ Indeed, I note that under the main title for the Westall66 documentary are the words ‘a forty-four year conspiracy.’ Suggestions of this nature do not help.


I have been told that Westall ‘witnesses’ need closure on what actually happened. However, all I see from my viewpoint, is frustrated individuals becoming even more frustrated and angry, e.g. the reactions on the Westall Flying Saucer Incident Facebook page to blog posts by myself on the HIBAL hypothesis (an idea to be debated); and to Paul Dean’s recent piece about Hazel Edwards’ testimony.

What is a ‘witness?'

I note the Facebook debate about what constitutes a ‘witness.’  Perhaps a better term would be ‘eye witness,’ someone who saw an unusual object. Then, there are other individuals who have knowledge relevant to an incident. Here, I would suggest, we might find people who an ‘eye witness’ told their story to (preferably at the time.) Police forces rely on such individuals to confirm the account of an ‘eye witness.’

Publish all available information

On the publicly available information (and if anyone has any addition information, please publish it for us all to debate and discuss) on the Westall incident, there is still much confusion as to basic pieces of data, e.g. (a) how many objects were present at around 10.20am that morning, or were subsequently present; and (b) the precise location of physical traces.  

There is no official Australian (or American) government information, and no Commonwealth government official has come forward to tell us what happened that day.  These facts need to be continually kept in mind, not summarily dismissed.

Large numbers of ‘eye witnesses’ do not necessarily increase the probability that something really unusual occurred that day. If you take a look at literature on ‘mass hysteria’ events at schools, you will get an overview of the difference between what was said by students/staff, to have happened, and what can be forensically reconstructed as having taken place, in these kind of events 

In summary

If after all these years of trying to get to the bottom of this incident, we haven’t succeeded; then perhaps it is time to let go. To close down the Yahoo Groups and Facebook Westall pages, and move on to other more profitable areas of UFO research. Offer closure to ‘eye witnesses’ by stop talking about the incident. Otherwise, I see we are simply in for years more, of the same circle.

Thursday, October 26, 2017

The 2004 'tic - tac' UAP


Much has been written on the Internet recently, about an incident which reportedly happened in November 2004; which resulted in an encounter between US Navy aviators and a 'tic - tac' shaped UAP. The story which has emerged, has a lengthy history, which many of the current Internet accounts don't cover. For my blog readers, I will attempt to provide as much information as is currently available.

Back in 2007

On 3 February 2007, on the Above Top Secret website, someone using the username 'thefinaltheory' (which I will abbreviate to TFT), on a thread titled 'Observations of an Actual UFO' posted about what seemed to be an intriguing incident.

TFT stated that an incident had occurred in 2005 when they were on board an aircraft carrier, based on the West coast of the USA, off the coast of Mexico. TFT mentioned that they worked in 'the computer field' and had access to 'the top secret network onboard.'

The incident was described as follows - at 2300 the ship went into 'security alert' and TFT asked others what was happening? The response was that there was a UFO above the ship. TFT then said they had logged on to the ship's network and that they found 'many videos and powerpoint briefs' written reports and message traffic about the incident. TFT burned these to disk which was subsequently misplaced. TFT referred to the video as being taken from a cockpit camera, was black and white, and showed altitude, pilot's 'nickname' and other data. The UAP was floating stationary at 30,000 feet. It was disk shaped. The pilot tried to get a lock on it but couldn't. The UAP moved in a half circle upward and paused. There was a bright flash and it disappeared from sight.

Discussion then ensued in subsequent posts, questioning the veracity of TFT and the details which had been provided.

On 4 February 2007 TFT announced that 'I have the video and documents as I have previously described,' but asked that the ATS thread be erased before he proceeded further. TFT was apparently concerned over the possibility of being tracked down.

An ATS moderator entered the picture and 'trashed' the thread, but revealed that the initial two posts of this thread, allegedly from TFT and another individual came from the same IP address. Later this moderator 'untrashed' the thread, which can still be read in 2017. However, they did close the thread at that point.

Later on 4 February 2007, another ATS thread was commenced, titled 'Fighter jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal.' TFT posted the first piece and announced that 'The video you are about to see...' There is a click 'here' to view the video but today if you click the link you are advised that is not to be found on the server.

This thread then contains an item titled 'recall of an event log of a ship of the US Navy fleet' which sets out the alleged incident. From further comments, it appears that a number of individuals were then able to access the video, view it and comment on it.

Later on 4 February 2007, UK researcher Isaac Koi posted, and pointed out that the video was similar to one created by Australian film maker Chris Kenworthy in 2006, which was not genuine. Koi also pointed out that the link given was part of a German website which was related to film making. In conclusion, Koi said that 'Pending release of the promised further 'files,' this video should be tentatively identified as an attempted hoax on ATS by members of the 'Vision unlimited' group of German student film makers.'

Much discussion ensued. Some posts supported the hoax hypothesis, while others wanted to see the further 'files.' TFT went on to say that 'I have four versions of the video...the "full" version is about twice the length of this...The video does reside on a German server for security...'

On 5 February 2007, and later, an individual using the username 'Willard856' who stated that they were in the Royal Australian Air Force, pointed out a number of facts, such as that the video was not of a Heads Up Display but in fact a Digital Display Indicator; and went on to provide details about the data shown on the video display.

The debate as to hoax or not, swung back and forwards, but on 10 February 2007 a moderator banned three accounts for hoaxing, including TFT. On 13 February 2007, another user 'Cometa2' posted an 'event summary' which was apparently supplied by TFT.

This second thread had no further posts until 23 October 2017 when Isaac Koi, asked if anyone from the 2007 time posts ever did get additional information from TFT? Other posters added the fact that Chris Mellon, on Tom Delonge's 'To the Stars Academy' launch announcement video, had provided details about a 2004 incident involving the Nimitz battle group off the coast of California, which sounded exactly like what was being described and shown in the two, 2007 ATS threads.

Forward to March 2015

On 14 March 2015, an article appeared on the website. The text of which I reproduce below. My take on the acronyms are:

WSO = Weapons Systems Officer
HMCS = Helmet Mounted Cueing System
BFM = Basic Fighter Maneuvers
CAP = Combat Air Patrol
STT = Single Target Track
EA = Electronic Attack
RWS = Range While Search
FLIR = Forward Looking Infra Red.

RWS shows multiple targets within the radar scan. STT provides accurate tracking of a single target.

'A good buddy of mine and former squadron mate, Dave "Sex" Fravor, has one of the most bizarre aviation stories of all time. It is a story that stretches credibility, so I'll start off building up Dave's bona fides.

For what it's worth, I know him personally - very well. We flew A-6s together for a cruise back in the Dark Ages before he matriculated into the Hornet world. He's a funny guy. Smart and sharp witted, with a typical fighter pilot's overestimation of his skills. (he'd read the SHB article and assured me his way was way better than anything Nasty could do. I called B.S. - pretty standard.) In the air, though, Dave was all business, as professional as it gets.

It's easy to get a sense of who and what he is because the squadron was featured on the 10-part miniseries Carrier that aired on PBS. You get an excellent and accurate impression of him from his screen time as Commanding Officer of VFA-41. On the morning of 14 November 2004, Dave and his WSO launched into the clear blue Southern California sky about a hundred miles southwest of San Diego. Their Call Sign was FASTEAGLE 01. His wingman and WSO launched just after them in FASTEAGLE 02. They climbed overhead the ship and rendezvoused in normal fashion before setting off to their assigned work area in the open ocean south of USS Nimitz. Normal day, normal ops for the pre-deployment work up cycle they were in the middle of.

The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group had been on station for a few weeks already, working to integrate the operations of the carrier with her various support ships, including the Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruiser USS Princeton. As far as Dave was concerned, it was a standard day in a normal work up cycle. Another step in the long journey in preparing the ships of the Strike Group and the planes of the Air Wing to work harmoniously for their upcoming combat deployment.

What Dave didn't know was for the past several days, Princeton had been picking up some bizarre returns on their Death Star - worthy SPY-1 radar. On several occasions beginning 10 November, the Fire Control Officer and the extremely experienced Fire Control Senior Officer had detected multiple returns descending from far above the radar's scan volume - somewhere higher than 80,000 ft. The targets, dubbed Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs), would drop from above 80K to hover roughly 50 feet off the water in a matter of seconds.

Always over the same spot, a Lat/Long about 30NM off the coast of Baja, roughly 70nm southwest of Tijuana. At the time, the SPY-1 was the most sophisticated and powerful tactical radar on the planet. With it, they were able to track these AAV's while they descended, hovered and then zipped away at speeds, turn rates and acceleration faster than any known friendly or threat aircraft. Impossibly fast. 

Once the Air Wing's planes arrived aboard Nimitz, the Fire Control team on Princeton saw an opportunity to use those assets and eyeballs to help solve the AAV mystery.

At the same time FASTEAGLE flight was wrapping up its scheduled training, the CO of Marine Hornet squadron VMFA-232, Lieutenant Colonel "Cheeks" Kurth was completing a post-maintenance check flight not too far away. He was the first fast-mover contacted by Princeton. The communication was strange and intriguing. He was asked to investigate an unidentified airborne contact. This wasn't a terribly unusual request while a Strike Group was in transit or deployed far from home waters, but it was more than a little strange practically in sight of the San Diego Homeport. To add to the unusual communications, he was queried as to what ordnance he had on board. "None."

While Princeton was communicating with Cheeks, they were also attempting to hand off their AAV contact to the Air Wing's E-2C Hawkeye, also airborne at the time. The crew from VAW-117 had been providing intercept control for FASTEAGLE flight during their training. Princeton now wanted the E-2 to guide the Super Hornets to an intercept with the AAV contact, currently hovering over their favourite spot, but now about 20,000 feet over the ocean.

The AAV returns had not been strong enough to show up on the E-2's broad sweep, but once they focussed their radar on the coordinates Princeton directed them towards, they managed a faint contact. The radar returns from the contact weren't enough to generate a target track however, so Princeton cut the E-2 from control and contacted FASTEAGLE directly. Though he was unable to lock up the AAVs, the E-2 controller remained on frequency and listened to the entire ensuing evolution.

As Cheeks approached the spot he was being vectored to, Princeton advised him to stay above 10K as the section of Super Hornets was approaching the target. His radar picked up the FASTEAGLE two ship, but no other contacts. A moment later Princeton directed him to 'skip it' and return to the ship. Since he was so  close he decided to fly over the action and sneak a  peek.

The sea was calm, almost glassy smooth and it was late morning on a beautiful SoCal day. Perfect conditions. As Cheeks flew over the spot he saw a disturbance on the surface of the ocean. A round section of turbulent water about 50-100 meters in diameter. It was the only area and type of what he called "whitewater" describing that it looked as if there was something below the surface like a shoal or what he'd heard a ship sinking rapidly would look like.

He overflew the disturbance and circled back in the direction of Nimitz without ever seeing what caused the water to froth. As he turned away, which happened to be the moment  the Super Hornets converged on the location, the whitewater cleared and the ocean surface returned to its smooth state. The spot of the previous disturbance was completely indiscernible.

A few thousand feet below him, Dave had gone through a similar surreal experience of being asked by Princeton if the FASTEAGLE jets were carrying any ordnance. Dave's baffled WSO reported that all they had were two captive-carry training missiles. They were given bearing and range vectors to a set of coordinates and told to investigate an unknown aerial contact over that spot.

With no further information on the contact, they descended to the low 20's and scanned with radar, picking nothing up. Neither plane in this flight was carrying a FLIR pod, which limited the type of sensors they could search with; but, both planes were brand new - in Dave's words, "They still had that new car smell." The APG-73 radars were both new and had performed perfectly during the previous hour's training. Yet the screens from both planes were clean all the way to the point Princeton called "Merge plot!"

All four aircrew were eyes out from this point forward. The first unusual indication Dave picked up was the area of whitewater on the surface that Cheeks was looking at over his shoulder as he flew away. He remembers thinking it was about the size of a 737 and maybe the contact they had been vectored on had been an airliner that had just crashed. He maneuvered his F-18 lower to get a better look. As he descended through about 20K he was startled by the sight of a white object that was moving about just over the frothing water. It was all white, featureless, oblong and making minor lateral movements while staying at a consistent low altitude over the disk of turbulent water.

Dave put FASTEAGLE 02 into high cover passing through about 15K and she and her WSO witnessed the events from a perfect vantage point. Dave continued his dive lower towards the object, now also attempting to slave the radar through his HMCS to achieve a short range lock. No luck. His intention was to pass the object close aboard at about 350 kts, but as he got closer he noticed that the AAV had oriented one of its skinny ends towards him, as if, in his words, "It had just noticed us" and it was now pointing at them.

The AAV then began to rise from its hover. The object, which he would later describe as a white tic-tac, rose in right 2-circle flow about a mile cross-circle from Dave's Hornet. BFM instincts took over and Dave dug nose-low to cut across the bottom of the circle. As he was looking at the AAV and pulling his nose up to bear, he tried again to slave his radar via the HMCS. Again, the APG-73 was unable to lock on the white, fighter-sized flying object now just a couple of thousand feet away and closing.

All through these maneuvers, Dave's WSO was broadcasting the real-time events of the intercept to Princeton. The radar operators in the E-2 listened on the secure net to what sounded like one of the hundreds of intercepts they had heard over the years. With the notable exception that the aircrew's voices were more stressed and the verbiage to ID the target was unlike anything they had heard before.

In his debrief comments, Dave, his WSO, and the two other crews stated the object had initially been hovering like a Harrier. They described it as uniformly white, about 46 feet long (roughly fighter sized), having a discernible midline horizontal axis (like a fuselage) but having no visible windows, nacelles, wings or propulsion systems.

As Dave was pulling for nose-on and trying to get a dogfight lock with his radar, the AAV tightened its turn, "lift vector on, then aft" as Dave described, passing behind his tail and accelerated away at multi-mach speed. Dave immediately queried Princeton for a snap-vector but the SPY-1 radar had also lost contact. The first calls from Princeton were "picture clean." A few minutes later Princeton came back with, "You're not going to believe this, it's at your CAP." Princeton had picked up the AAV hovering at 24K at the assigned Lat/Long Dave had used earlier during training as his orbiting point.

Though low on gas, the FASTEAGLE flight swung through the CAP position to try and pick up the AAV again. They saw nothing more on their way back to Nimitz. Even the 100 meter circle of turbulent water had disappeared. That spot was now indistinguishable from the rest of the sea's surface. Asked later, Dave reported that he had not seen anything on or below the surface that may have caused the turbulent circle of water. It had existed when they had first visually acquired the tic-tac, then was gone when they circled back a few minutes later.

Back on Nimitz after recovery, the four crew headed down to the paraloft to remove their gear. The next four crews from VFA-41 were getting dressed for their training mission to the same area, using the same assigned Lat/Longs as CAP points. Dave and his crew members passed on what they had seen to the new guys and reminded them to get tape if they could.

By the time the new crew launched, rendezvoused and checked in with the E-2 for control, it was early afternoon; 1500. The planes separated, with one heading to that same southern CAP location. They were cruising along at 20K and 300kts, max endurance. Again the jet, radar and also, this time, the FLIR were spanking new and operating perfectly.

The WSO first picked up a contact on the radar around 30nm away while it was operating in the RWS scan mode. He checked the coordinates and it was indeed hovering over their precise CAP point. He attempted several STT locks, to no avail. Later, in the debrief, he explained that he had multiple telltale cues of EA.

The target aspect on the track file was turning through 360 degrees along with some other distinct, jamming indications. In the less precise scan mode, the return indicated that the object was, in the WSO's words, "A few thousand feet below us. Around 15-20K - but hovering stationary." The only movement was generated by the closure of the fighter to the CAP location.

The WSO resorted to the FLIR pod on board, slaving it to the weak track the RWS mode had been able to generate. He recorded the following sequence to the on-board recorder. Using the IR mode, he was able to lock onto the AAV. It showed up on his screen and on tape as a white object in a black background hovering with no known means. The IR camera did not detect roiling hot gasses blasting from below the AAV, as they would with a Harrier or a helicopter. It was simply hanging in midair. He switched to the TV mode and was able to again lock the FLIR onto the object while still trying, with no luck, to get a STT track on the radar. As he watched it, the AAV moved out of his screen to the left so suddenly it almost seemed to disappear. On the tape, when it is slowed down, the object accelerated out of the field of view with shocking speed. The WSO was not able to reacquire the AAV either in RWS or with the FLIR.

Somehow the tape made its way to YouTube. A few years after the incident, when first telling me the story, Dave pointed me to the link. It was unremarkable without the background information. But folded into context it was amazing,especially the slow-mo of the dot accelerating out of screen. For years I told the story to friends and showed them the video as punctuation. However, last month when I called Dave to refresh my memory before sitting down to write this bizarre encounter, he informed me that the video had been removed from YouTube. He told me that a government agency with a three letter identifier had recently conducted an investigation into the AAV;s and had exhaustively interviewed all parties involved.

All of the seven flight crew, including 6 aircrew from VFA-41 and Cheeks from VMFA-232. The Fire Control Officer and Senior Chief from Princeton, and the radar operator on the EC-2. They even queried the crew of the USS Louisville, a Los Angeles Fast-Attack submarine that was in the area as part of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group who reported there were no unidentified sonar contacts or strange underwater noises that day.

I'm not sure what to make of these events. I've loved the story since first listening because it is so crazy. I had never given aliens or UFOs much thought. It was a waste of my CPU power to mull a question like that. If they wanted to make contact, they would. If they wanted to observe from a distance, then they would be impossible to discern given the assumed high technology required to visit.

But now I was faced with credible witnesses. Not crackpots wearing foil hats but people I knew and people who were from my world. There were multiple, corroborating platforms that detected the AAVs using varied sensors. And, of course, the eight eyeballs that actually got a visual on the white tic-tac as Dave maneuvered to merge with it. He doesn't have to be a stranger to you either. Watch him on the PBS series, Carrier, and generate your own opinion of his professionalism and sanity. Then send me your best design for an aluminium foil hat...

About the author

Paco Chierici flew A-6E Intruders and F-14A Tomcats during his 10 year active duty career. He flew the F-5 Tiger II for a further 10 years as a Bandit concurrent with his employment as a commercial pilot. Paco is also the creator and producer of the award winning naval aviation documentary Speed and Angels. Paco has written articles for various international and domestic magazines as well as regular contributions to FighterSweep. He is currently revising the first draft of his debut novel, a naval aviation thriller. Paco has the standard panoply of medals and ribbons but his proudest accomplishment is the Top Nugget award for landing grades from his first deployment.'

 On to 2017

The incident is in the process of being investigated by the Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy. They have so far detailed the following information on their Face Book page.

Firstly, on 21 October 2017 they posted:

I am going to tell you about a Navy-UFO encounter that deserves a congressional investigation to determine if this happened or not. I am going to create three posts related to a recent UFO event that occurred in November of 2004 and involved the Navy’s Carrier Strike Group 11 off the southwest coast of California. This will be the first post and it will include the information that I initially obtained on the incident. If after reading these three posts you are reasonably convinced that this event happened then I will ask you to join me in a letter-writing campaign to a congressional subcommittee requesting that they ask for a debriefing of the incident from the Navy. Please share this FB site with anyone that you know who would be interested. #F18UFO #UFO

I was first told of this UFO incident in July of 2016 by an individual who was involved in the investigation of this event. He told me that the incident had been partially leaked to the internet, so that I could begin my investigation without involving my friend. Knowing a few of the key words I was able to locate the leaked story here:
(Ignore the UFO photos in the article as those are just add-ons by the author for effect and are not related to the actual event.) What attracted me to this story was that it was not on a typical UFO site but was found on a site authored by a formal naval aviator and who predominately writes about naval aviator stories, not UFOs. So he had no UFO agenda to push. And the author went out of his way to establish the excellent background of the commanding officer of the F-18s known as the Black Aces. The story was full of “navy talk” and I spent considerable time deciphering that WSO = weapons system officer, SPY1 = phased array radar, E-2C Hawkeye = type of airborne early warning aircraft, BFM = basic fighter maneuvers, etc. Once I had read the full story, I felt that there was a strong likelihood that the event my friend had directed me to had actually occurred.

I next began online investigations to verify the identity of the individuals in the story and I found that those officers were all legitimate and had served in the Navy during that time. I searched additional websites for clues to this event. First, I found a Navy Event Summary document that had been leaked to the internet by an unknown source that mentioned this event. The document had much of the same information as was provided in the naval aviator’s story: dates and locations match up; USS Princeton detects objects on radar and dispatches the F18s; F18s don’t find a radar target but detect the object visually; F18s engage the unknown; and F18s are outmatched by the unknowns. I then ran the Navy Event Summary document by a retired naval officer and he indicated that the document looked legitimate in terms of its format. A copy of this summary document can be found here:…/0By-yCcE3UvHcSlg0YlhyaGYyd…/view…
My friend who had originally told me about this case indicated that there had been video taken of the object and that it had been released to the internet several years ago and then was later removed. A copy of that video was obtained using the WayBack machine which is an internet site that maintains historical website data. The video is taken in the infra-red and depicts a hot object in the video cross-hairs for about 75 seconds before the object rapidly moves out of the video frame and towards the left. The altitude shown on the video matches the approximate altitude of the jets and the shape of the object in the video matches the pilots’ descriptions. A copy of this video can be found here:…/0B61eOLiwJH1SWVIzZnNVc0taR…/view…
Of these three documents, the one that I find the strongest is the story by the naval aviator. The Navy Event Summary and the F-18 video support the story but more was needed. The question in my mind then became---could I support this information from another source. In December of 2016 I submitted nine FOIAs to various departments of the Navy and Marines to try and verify this event. In Part II of this series, I will share the information on the FOIAs that I submitted.

Secondly, on 25 October 2017 they wrote:
Part II Remember---please share this post. #F18UFO #UFO
In December 2016 I submitted nine different Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Navy and the Marines in an effort to establish whether the information on the UFO encounter that I discussed in Part I was real. Here is a link to one of the actual FOIA requests for those that like to see the details:…/0By-yCcE3UvHcbFJTRWgyYi0tR…/view…
 Notice that I never used the term “UFO” in the request as this lessens the likelihood of success because of the negative connotations with the use of that word. This type of FOIA request was made for five different Navy assets that were involved in this incident; a nuclear aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz; a guided missile cruiser, the USS Princeton; an F-18 part of a Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-232); two to four F-18 Super Hornets from a Navy Fighter Attack Squadron (VFA-41); and a carrier based airborne early warning aircraft (an E-2C from VAW-117). Requests were sent to Naval Intelligence, Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Marines Pacific, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Naval Research, Naval Surface Forces in the Pacific, Naval Air Warfare Center, Naval Facilities, Naval Sea Systems Command, and Naval History.
By April of 2017 I had received replies on all nine of my requests for information. In every case the Navy replied that they had no information responsive to my request. I appealed two of what I considered the most important of the nine FOIAs to the Navy’s Judge Advocate General (JAG). The first appeal came back denied. In the second appeal I pointed out to the Navy JAG officers that another appeal denial would would indicate that on November 14, 2004, that they had no records on five different Navy assets. I copied my senators and congressman on my appeal. This time I had success. Although the Navy again indicated that they could find no documents, this time they provided me emails with some very interesting information that establishes the encounter with the unknown craft did occur.
Remember in Part I of this story that the F-18 pilot referred to the objects encountered as resembling the oval candy known as tic tacs. JAG provided me an email they received from a Marine Lieutenant Colonel that began as follows: “I am definitely aware of the ‘flying tic tac’! We were aboard the USS Nimitz attached to CVW-11. The CO of VFA-41, CDR Fravor had the video footage on his ATFLIR and several pilots in VMFA-232 saw the video.” Bingo! Not only did this event happen, the video was witnessed by a number of Navy and Marine officers. Is the video the same one that was leaked to the internet? We can’t know for certain but I think if the Navy has done their due diligence then they still have a copy of that video.
And then a second email was provided to me by JAG from a Marine Major. In that email he states, “MAG-11 (Marine Air Group 11) Operations should have a Point of Contact at the archive to facilitate recovery of these files.” This clearly indicates that the Major would expect the Marine archival group to have copies of these records. And would it not be reasonable to expect that the Navy would have the records archived of such an extraordinary event!
In total, I have the names of nine different Marine and Navy officers who either participated in the encounter with the unknown craft or have direct knowledge of the event. I will again appeal for the actual case files but the only way to really get to the bottom of this mystery is to ask a Congressional subcommittee to get involved. In Part 3 I will give you step by step instructions on how you can help petition your congressman. Please share this story with others on Facebook.

That then, is the sum total public information that I am aware of. The investigation is ongoing. 

Committee members of the VFSRS/VUFORS : 1959 - 1972

Introduction Between 1959 and 1972, there were over thirty individuals who served on the committee of the Victorian Flying Saucer Resea...