Westall, the Department of Supply and Mr 'X'

Background

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.

Update

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

Background

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 www.navy.gov.au/hmas-anzac-ii

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. 

Westall - a dissenting view

Introduction

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.

Closure

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.

The 2004 'tic - tac' UAP

Introduction

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  www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/f4.mpg 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 FighterSweep.com 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: https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/

(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:https://drive.google.com/…/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: https://drive.google.com/…/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: https://drive.google.com/…/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. 

Update: 18 December 2019

In a blog post dated 15 December 2019, researcher Tim McMillan reports on correspondence between himself and Pentagon spokesperson, Susan L Gough. One part of the blog post reads:

"...specifically speaking about the 2007 leak of the "FLIR 1" aka "F4" video Gough says: 
"In 2009, the online post of the video came to the attention of Navy officials who, in consultation with Navy Law Enforcement personnel, decided not to pursue the matter."

Update: 21 December 2019

An article appeared in the 15 December 2019 issue of New York Magazine which detailed an interview with the pilot, Chad Underwood, who captured the Tic Tac video.

An interview between Jim Breslo and former US Navy pilot Paco Chierici describing the Nimitz incident appeared on Youtube dated 9 December 2019. 

Westall - and James E McDonald's files

Background

The late US researcher James E McDonald visited Australia in 1967. While here, he interviewed dozens of Australians about their UAP sightings, both by phone and in person.

Recently, the attention of Melbourne researcher Paul Dean and myself, was drawn, by US researcher Brad Sparks, to the University of Arizona's special collection MS412, of papers which had been gathered by McDonald.

On the University's special collections website there appears a listing of the contents of McDonald's boxes of papers. Among the listing for box one, is  a folder, 'Australian Miscellaneous Sightings: Slides, Sullivan, Westall School sightings.'

I am not aware of anyone who has accessed this folder. Therefore, I submitted an application to the University of Arizona to obtain a copy of the contents of the folder. After paying their fee, and waiting a few days, I received a WeTransfer of the contents.

What is in this folder?

1. 16 July 1967. 'The Sun-Herald' Sydney, New South Wales newspaper. Possible sighting of a flying saucer by Maggie Tabberer and Pat Firman.

2. 8 pages of 'Summary of Unusual Aerial Sightings reported to the Department of Air Canberra' 1960-1965. Sent by Peter Norris of Melbourne.

3. Envelope addressed to McDonald from VFSRS.

4. 30 Aug 1967. 'Mercury' Hobart, Tasmania newspaper. 'UFOs seen over state.'

    30 Aug 1967. 'Advocate' Burnie, Tasmania newspaper. 'Three UFO sightings.'

5. 5 May 1967. 'Bairnsdale Advertiser' Bairnsdale, Victoria newspaper. An earthquake in Victoria.

6. 30 Aug 1967. 'Advertiser' Adelaide, South Australia newspaper. '"Space systems" may be watching us.'
    30 Aug 1967. 'Examiner' Launceston, Tasmania newspaper. 'We are being watched.'
    30 Aug 1967 'The Mercury' Hobart, Tasmania newspaper. 'Scientist claims eyes from space may be watching.'

7. 25 Aug 1967. 'Advocate'  Burnie, Tasmania newspaper. 'UFOs seen by four.'
    30 Aug 1967. 'Telegraph' Sydney, New South Wales newspaper. 'Saucers.'

8. Envelope addressed to McDonald.

9. Letter dated 5 Sep 1967 to McDonald from Francis L Rose.

10. 4 pages re McDonald's appearance on ABC TV show.

11. 19 Mar 1967. 'Mail' Brisbane, Queensland newspaper. St George-Mitchell sighting.
      26 Mar 1967. 'Courier Mail' Brisbane, Queensland newspaper. 'Spotter in dark over 'saucer.''

12. 23 Mar 1967. 'Journal' Traralgon, Victoria newspaper. 'What is the noise?'
       11 Mar 1967 'Sunraysia Daily' Mildura, Victoria newspaper. 'What is it?

13. Undated newspaper 'We saw flying saucer over Hallam.'

14. 14 Nov 1963. 'Wonthaggi Express' ''More see a UFO.'

15. 31 May 1963. '?' newspaper, Sydney. 'Flying saucers just 'poppycock.''
      30 May 1963. 'News' Adelaide, South Australia newspaper. 'Object in sky not a meteor.'
      30 May 1963. 'Mirror' Sydney, New South Wales 'Mystery light over Canberra.'

16. 31 May 1963. 'The Age' Melbourne, Victoria newspaper. 'Mystery object in Canberra sky.'
      30 May 1963. 'Telegraph' Brisbane, Queensland newspaper. 'A saucer sighted by scientists.'
      31 May 1963, 'The Sun' 'Canberra saucer was vampire jet.'

17. Ballarat Astronomical Society 1965 UFO conference.

18. 2 pages. 'Experiences with UFOs' by W H Sloane.

19. 3 pages. Ballarat observatory.

20. Program. Ballarat UFO conference 1965.

21. 29 Jun 1967. Letter from W H Sloane to McDonald.

22. 10 Jul 1967. ? re WRE.

23. 21 Jul 1965. 'Telegraph' Sydney, New South Wales newspaper. 'The thing on the beach.'

24. 24 Apr 1965. Letter to VFSRS from Len Langford re sighting in September 1962.

25. 13 Mar 1965. 'Sydney Morning Herald' Sydney, New South Wales newspaper. 'My flying saucer-Keith Hooper.'

26. Uncited newspaper. 'Moon object pics.' Iron Duke ship photographs.

27. 31 Dec 1965. Letter to Paul Norman from Observatory Adhara.

28. 28 Jun 1967. Letter to McDonald from Sydney radio station 2GB.

29. 7 Nov 1963. 'The Express' Wonthaggi, Victoria newspaper. Bread carter sighting.

30. UK Flying Saucer Review article, Jul-Aug 1966 re Westall.

31. 21 Apr 1966. 'The Dandenong Journal' article re Westall.

32. Sheet - hand written note. 'Westall School. Misc notes 5/20/67. Aust FSR no 5 p13 for Greenwood's account.

33. 14 Apr 1966. 'The Dandenong Journal' 'Flying saucer mystery.'

Notes

As can be seen, the folder contains information about miscellaneous Australian sightings, but nothing of significance about the 6 Apr 1966 Westall event. However, it should be noted that McDonald did conduct a face to face interview with Westall witness Andrew Greenwood. To read a detailed summary of this 1967 Greenwood interview, click here

To read detailed summaries of all the 1967 Australian witness interviews by McDonald, compiled by Sydney researcher Anthony Clarke and myself, click here.

Westall - and the CSIRO

In a recent Facebook post, on the Westall Flying Saucer Incident Facebook page, Victorian researcher George Simpson made reference to an account where the CSIRO was reported to have removed soil from a location in Westall.  I had previously explored the UFO interest of one CSIRO scientist, who actually investigated the 6 April 1966 incident. Below I repost my 2015 blog post on this scientist.

Felician Andrzej Berson - the CSIRO - and his interest in UAP

Introduction:

There are scattered references, in the civilian UAP literature, to the interest of an individual named Dr. F A Berson, who worked for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research organisation (CSIRO). I thought it might be useful to bring these references together, hence this post.

Dr F A Berson
(Source: Garratt, J et al.  "Winds of Change." CSIRO publishing. 1999. Out of print.)

Biography:

Firstly, before investigating his interest in the subject of UAP, I present a biography which I found in an article "Clouds on the Horizon" written by Berson himself, which appeared in  volume 72, number 2, February 1991 of the Bulletin American Meteorological Society.

Berson decided to study meteorology and qualified for his doctorate in 1934; then worked at the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute; followed by the Polish State Meteorological institute until 1939. Berson then moved to England where he joined the RAAF as a meteorologist, during the second world war.

In 1946, one of the items on his research list concerned cold fronts. After the war he accepted a post with the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Berson writes that at one point (about Carl-Gustav Rossby) "He appreciated the fact that I had imagination and was anything but institutionally inclined, he also enjoyed the eccentric behaviour I displayed on occasions.  p.208.)

In 1952 he "...applied to join the rapidly growing group of English wartime colleagues led by C H B Priestley forming the section (later Division) of Atmospheric Physics in the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) at Aspendale near Melbourne." (p.210.)

Between 1953 and 1974, when he retired, Berson worked at the CSIRO, and was known as Andgei to his colleagues. He researched cold fronts, Antarctic circulation; quasi-biennial oscillation; convective systems and interpreting radar echoes. During this time he worked for a period at the International Antarctic Analytical Center, and another period of time at the US Weather Bureau in Washington, DC. He also spent time at NCAR's National Hail Research Experiment at Boulder and Grover, Colorado in the US.


Ca. 1956:

According to Berson himself, in a letter, dated 28 November, 1966, to Robert Low of the famous Condon Committee, he became interested in the topic of UAP around 1956:

"It was in fact Mr Groodin who first got me interested in the subject. This was some ten years ago. I have since had one or two contacts in this matter, with Government departments, but have established closer contacts with a private agency in Victoria in an endeavour to find out what they were up to and whether scientific research was feasible."

According to Garratt, J; Angus, D and Holper P. (1999. "Winds of Change." CSIRO publishing, page 13,)  Ivan S Groodin was working for the CSIRO's Atmospheric Physics section from 1953, and was there at the time Berson joined that same section.

Ivan S Groodin in a group photograph.
(Source: "Winds of Change." CSIRO Publishing. 1999.)

March/April 1963:

Dr Berson investigated the 15 March 1963 Willow Grove, near Moe, Victoria, case. In an interview between Peter Norris of the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society, and the witness, Charles Brew; Brew says:

A. "...the CSIRO were here and number one question as far as they were concerned - he asked me did I get a headache. I said..."

Q. "What did the CSIRO man say? Incidentally, do you know his name? What's his name?"

A. "Er, Mr Berson. Yes, Mr Berson was his name."

Q. "And what did he say about the headache?"

A. Well, he said, 'that ties in with what our theory, we always had the impression that it was ..." (what would you say) he gave me the impression it was electro-magnetic or something to that effect - that's beyond me - but he said that would more than likely cause a headache  and it certainly took all day to get rid of it, anyhow. I know that."

Q. "What else did the CSIRO do?"

A. " Well, as I said, he took away samples of rock - they were very interested in that - because he said being a sort of an ironstone, it may have some attraction for it. And there is the reef as I said..."

Q. "How long after the sighting, did the CSIRO come down here?'

A. "They were here about 4 days after..."

On 8 April 1963, Dr Berson wrote to Sylvia Dutton of CAPIO, advising that:

"I visited Mr Brew in company of a friend of mine, but we did not take any rock samples. But I know that somebody else did. To obtain more information about the mentioned sighting, please contact the RAAF Department of Air, Canberra who are investigating this case." 

The following is from a letter from Berson to Robert Low, dated 11May 1967:

"...among them a sketch of the distribution of total magnetic intensity (as recorded by an AN/ASQ-1 airborne magnetometer installed in a DC3 aircraft) in a part of Gippsland surrounding the site of the Willow Grove sighting."

Later, in the same letter Berson suggested:

"Following a discussion with a geophysicist in the Antarctic Division of the Department of External Affairs I venture to suggest to you that a statistical investigation should be made on the following lines: place and/or time of (low level?) sightings of high credibility rating be correlated with magnetic data such as the three hourly geomagnetic k index at observatories and the world-wide kp index." 

Who was Berson's companion on his visit to Moe in 1963? Berson mentioned he was accompanied by a Mr Clarke. On the website for the Encyclopaedia of Australian Science http://www.eoas.info/P003236b.htm I found the following information:

Reginald Henry Clarke ( (1914-1990) joined the Bureau of meteorology in 1940, and then joined the CSIRO's Division of Atmospheric Physics at Aspendale in 1957. He retired in 1978 and passed away in 1990. One of his research interests was the subject of tornadoes.



Reg Clarke
(Source: "Winds of Change." CSIRO Publishing.1999.)

19 September 1963:

On Thursday 19 September 1963, Berson had his own sighting. I found the following information in an interview between Berson and James E McDonald dated 29 June 1967.  As far as I can ascertain he was at home in Mt Eliza, Melbourne at the time. He was with his son, when they noticed a cherry-red light in the sky. Far from being a point source of light, he estimated it had an angular size of one quarter of a degree, i.e. half the diameter of the full Moon.

The object appeared stationary, and there was no associated sound. He went inside the house to fetch binoculars, but when he came out, his son said that the object had formed two objects, and disappeared.

There was a newspaper report that an object was also reported from the Melbourne suburb of Dudley South at the same time. He checked the azimuth direction of his observation (it had been near a tree or similar object) and the track passed over Dudley South. He deduced that the object was not a balloon, or a hoax.

I found additional information on page 77 of the book by Michael Hervey, titled "UFOs over the Southern Hemisphere." (Click here.)

"On September 19, 1963, at approximately 8pm, the VFSRS received a telephone call from a man living at Mt Eliza. He and his family had watched an unusual object in the sky a little earlier that evening. The object, about 20 to 30 degrees above the horizon, appeared blood red  and was blinking on and off. It seemed larger than a star and made no sound. The object disappeared in a slightly easterly direction." 

"The Express" Newspaper of Wonthaggi, Victoria in its 26 September 1963 edition provided some other information. At 1845hrs South Dudley children at a playground saw an object. An orange ball was seen to the west. There was no sound. Tom Lymer reported "It was flashing on and off like an aeroplane light" but bigger and brighter. It was moving much slower than an aircraft. Suddenly flame shot out and it travelled at a tremendous speed. It was lost for a while then picked up to the south, hovering. Tom Ruby said that after hovering and still flashing on and off, it moved over the sea and disappeared. It was reported that television reception was affected.

The Australian Flying Saucer Review, May 1964, page 1 said that a John Waters, 17 saw two objects. "One appeared first, travelling in an area but not stopping, and the second object came over a little higher and followed the same trajectory." Mrs Sutton said that the Mt Eliza man's object was travelling in a south to south-east direction. Mrs Sutton checked with the RAAF, weather bureau and the Department of Civil Aviation and said that there were no balloons, kites, planes etc in the area at the time.

McDonald in his handwritten notes of interview with Berson wrote that the object was "Not blinking. Review is in error."


April 1966: The Westall incident:

In Ann Druffel's book on James E McDonald, "Firestorm" (click here) she wrote that

"Dr Berson had done his own investigation of the Westall High School sighting. He'd called Moorabbin airport also, but had been told he would have to call four separate companies in order to try to track down the source of the five Cessnas! He'd learned that students at Clayton school had also seen the object at the same time. he went to the Department of Air, but was given no information. There he was told by an aviation instructor, "We have a sub-chasing aircraft with very bright lights that can be misinterpreted."  The Australian officials were reaching as far afield for 'explanations' as project Blue Book."

Berson himself refers to this incident, in a letter to Robert Low dated 28 November 1966. In part it reads:

"On another occasion I established the fact that a similar D.A. team had appeared so quickly on the scene of a sighting made by a group of school children and a teacher in the vicinity of an aerodrome as to make one believe that they had some foreknowledge.The teaching staff was asked by the DA men to "play it down" and the sighting was promptly ridiculed, but quite independently another group of people had reported the unusual phenomenon from the opposite peripheral area of the aerodrome." 


July 1966:

An article titled "The Tully Nests: How freakish can whirlwinds be?" appeared in the Australian Flying Saucer Review, number 5, dated July 1966 pages 3-7. The article was "written by a member of VFSRS who has been connected with studies in atmospheric sciences." The references include an article by Reg Clarke. This may have been written by Berson.


May 1967:

In the McDonald archive section of Dr Michael Swords' digital file  collection, I found a letter dated 26 May 1967 to Dr Berson from James E McDonald. McDonald advised Berson that he was visiting Australia in June and July 1967. In part it read:

"I am now convinced it is a problem warranting greater increased scientific attention by a much larger group of workers...In going over one account of the Brew case, near Moe, Australia, I have noted that you are cited as a CSIRO investigator who looked into that interesting case. I should like very much to discuss that and any other Australian cases of which you have direct knowledge...I should like very much to speak to some of the CSIRO meteorologists about this entire problem...I might mention that I know...Priestley and Swinbank of your group."


June 1967:

Also in Swords' files is a letter dated 10 June 1967 from Sylvia Sutton, CAPIO to McDonald. In part it reads:

"The Chief purpose of this letter is to invite you to dine at my home...Dr Berson of the CSIRO, with whom you have been  corresponding, has become a good friend of my family...so I have invited him and his wife to join us. He was particularly pleased about this because he would have liked to arrange some social occasion at his own home at Mt Eliza but due to the travelling distance, this rather ruled it out..."

McDonald met Berson on a number of occasions whilst in Melbourne, Victoria.

In the Australian journal of James E McDonald I found an entry dated 29 June 1967:

"then to Berson office to see geomagnetic anomaly at Brew site, and interviewed Berson re his Sep 19, 1963 sighting. Met Eric Webb who's been interested in UFOs (?) for some time but not until few weeks back did Berson learn of that..."

Eric Webb also worked also worked for the CSIRO.



Eric Webb
(Source: "Winds of Change." CSIRO Publishing. 1999.)

Another McDonald entry dated 30 June 1967  read:

"Phoned Berson. He wants me back. Priestley back and quite interested."


July 1967:

Another entry dated 4 July 1967 reads: "Paul and Geoff drove me to the CSIRO, Aspendale, met Priestley and Deacn (?) and Dyer."


CSIRO files on UAP:

The National Archives of Australia holds two relevant CSIRO files. File series A9778, control symbol M1/F/31, date range 1952-1957 is titled "Flying Saucers."

File series A852, control symbol HM1/30 titled "Miscellaneous Enquiries - General - UFOs."

 Is there anything on these files about Berson's UAP interests, or indeed about that of Groodin? I failed to find anything, however there were three items of general interest:

1. A memo dated 26 June 1968 from the Department of External Affairs addressed to the Secretary, Prime Minister's department, Canberra cc'd to Dr D F Martyn. Officer in charge, Upper Atmospheric Section CSIRO, about the Condon committee in the USA. However, the Upper Atmospheric Section was in Camden, New South Wales and not Aspendale, Victoria.

2. In the period 1959 to at least 1965, a copy of UAP reports were sent to the CSIRO, from the Department of territories (Papua New Guinea). There is no mention of which section/division of the CSIRO they ultimately ended up with.

3. A memo from the Department of Air, to the CSIRO dated 28 November 1968 advised that:

"During the course of an investigation into the unusual sightings made by Mr A S Ricketts of Baccus Marsh, Victoria, it was learnt that a 'team of CSIIRO scientists" had visited him on 7th July 1966. This Department would be grateful for any information on this visit that could be of assistance in assessing the origin of Mr Rickett's sightings."

 On 5 December 1966 the CSIRO replied:

"I have made inquiries from several likely CSIRO Divisions, but with negative results."

RAAF file 580/1/1 Part 6, held by the National Archives of Australia reveals a detailed investigation report on multiple observations by Mr Ricketts. It included:

"Mr Ricketts had a visit from a team of CSIRO scientists who saw something but would not confirm that this that this was a UFO. Mr Rickett's would not divulge the names of the CSIRO scientists."