Excerpts from The McDaniel Report
This column will reproduce various sections of The McDaniel Report. The selections will change periodically. The selection for this update is a portion of Chapter Nine, The Ethical Question: Public Responsibility" (pages 159-170). The version presented here has been edited and updated for the current situation. Footnotes are in square brackets [0]
CONTENTS
In Chapter One, I listed four questions. Based upon the analysis of research and methodology presented in Chapters Three through Seven, the answers to these questions are discussed below. The first three questions take summary form; the fourth is the topic of this chapter.
Answer: Highly reliable.
The use of image enhancement to compensate for inherent characteristics of satellite and spacecraft photography is standard.[1] Methods of image cleanup, magnification, digital and analog contrast control, photoclinometry, and fractal analysis used by the researchers are proven procedures based upon the most advanced technology. The researchers who have developed this data are qualified and experienced professionals. Research results have been confirmed in several instances by cross-comparison between techniques and between different Viking frames. Geometric measurements at Cydonia have been carried out using orthographically rectified images obtained from NASA and the US Geological Survey and based upon an official updated control grid. There is no reason to question the validity of the hard data within reasonable tolerances.
Answer: There is at least a reasonable probability that some of the Cydonia landforms are artificial.
The combination of geometric arrangement and geomorphological anomaly at Cydonia appears to go beyond the likelihood of chance. In recent work, Dr. Mark J. Carlotto has applied a statistical technique called Bayesian analysis to the confluence of data to come up with an estimate of 30 to 1 odds in favor of artificial origin. Dr. Horace W. Crater has applied a rigorous probability analysis to the mound configuration south of the "City" and found that the likelihood of chance arrangement is less than one in 200 million. The separate archaeological methodology used by Dr. James F. Strange appears to corroborate Crater's results. The official NASA explanation --that the landforms have the shapes (and the arrangements) they do as a result of "differential erosion"--remains simply a geological guess, stretches credibility, and as an hypothesis has been brought into serious question by the recent work of geologist James Erjavec. While some previously unknown geological phenomenon may be responsible for the mound configuration, the presence of potential cultural meaning within the complex (humanoid facial features, coherent geometric arrangement, and relation to a known symbolism) makes it reasonable to suspect a possible artificial origin for some features.
Answer: No. The data indicates a reasonable possibility that some of the landforms may be artificial. NASA's position is inconsistent with this finding.
State-of-the-art techniques applied by qualified researchers to produce data bearing upon the question of artificiality have been rejected by NASA on spurious grounds. Despite repeated claims to the contrary, NASA does not appear to have conducted a proper scientific evaluation of the landforms, or to have given reasonable consideration to the results obtained by independent investigators. As demonstrated in this volume, "Evidence" cited by NASA against the artificiality hypothesis consists primarily of fallacious arguments, a priori reasoning, subjective judgments, and misinterpretation. Factors independent of geology, including the geometry of the area, as well as possible anthropological, symbolic, and archaeological considerations, have been routinely ignored.
Legal: NASA is not a private corporation. It is bound by laws intended to ensure its performance of its public responsibilities. By law, government agencies, including NASA, are prohibited from acting "capriciously, arbitrarily, irrationally, fraudulently, or without a basis in law or reason." Much of the behavior reported in this volume, it may be argued, runs counter to this prohibition-- including NASA's use of fanciful landscape features to ridicule the artificiality hypothesis, and the apparently false and misleading reports sent to United States senators and representatives.[2]
Section 102 (c) (1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 declares that an objective of this country's space activities is "the expansion of human knowledge in the atmosphere and in space." There is presently a significant open question of knowledge regarding the objects at Cydonia, which the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft is potentially capable of resolving. Not to use this instrument, or future instruments, to settle this open and tremendously important scientific question would appear to violate the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of the Space Act.
Section 203 (a) (3) requires NASA to "provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof." The legislative history comments, "This provision affirms the intent of Congress to let the people know all the facts, and to promote the spread of scientific knowledge, subject only to necessary security restrictions." The Code of Federal Regulations (14 C.F.R. Section 1213.101(b)) provides that "release of information concerning NASA activities and the results will be made promptly, factually, and completely" and further (c) "NASA will respond promptly to inquiries from the information media and industry."[3] NASA's contractual arrangement for the Mars Global Surveyor Camera, which grants sole authority for imaging decisions to the Principal Investigator and allows a six-month sequestering period of data without clear accountability, may be in conflict with these requirements.[4]
Scientific: The apparent failure of the Mars Observer mission is all the greater loss to science because of its inability to return data on the Cydonia landforms. If NASA's current failure to assign appropriate priority to these landforms remains in effect for the Global Surveyor and future missions to Mars, science stands at risk of being denied what might be the greatest scientific discovery of all time; and NASA itself is at risk of committing the most egregious act of scientific irresponsibility of all time. Indeed, NASA has already, by its ridicule of the artificiality hypothesis and its failures in the area of proper research on the Cydonia landforms, effectively compromised the scientific process.
Ethical: There are two ethical issues raised by NASA's negative response to the artificiality hypothesis. One is that of public responsibility; the other is that of scientific responsibility. The previous chapter brought up issues of scientific responsibility. The discussion below is concerned with NASA's public responsibility.
What is NASA's public responsibility in relation to a possible SETI breakthrough? Earlier I referred to a report in preparation (in 1993) at the NASA Ames Research Center on the cultural aspects of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. In this report, the position that NASA would not withhold information on such a breakthrough from the public is said to be strongly supported.[5] This is also cited as the informal policy. But NASA's actual behavior in the specific case of the Cydonia objects, documented herein, is not consistent with this stated policy. It seems that NASA may be willing to apply such a policy in the case of interstellar radio signals, but resists investigating possible evidence of past extraterrestrial activity on Mars.
I have already noted that NASA has a legal obligation to promote "the expansion of human knowledge in the atmosphere and in space," and to "provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof." NASA also is subject to an ethical obligation. In Chapter One of this document, I stated a general principle that I believe must be considered as governing.
Any reasonable degree of doubt regarding the natural origin of any of the debated features creates a profound and compelling ethical obligation for NASA to increase significantly the level of priority for obtaining high resolution photographs of those features.
The material presented thus far has established many times over that there is a reasonable degree of doubt. We have, therefore, moved into an unprecedented ethical dimension: A compelling obligation now exists for NASA, and for the executive and congressional bodies governing NASA, to act decisively with all the means at their disposal to confirm or disconfirm the artificiality hypothesis.
This obligation has a magnitude so great that it is difficult to place an ordinary value upon it. It is an obligation not only to the people of the United States, to whom NASA is responsible, but also to the people of the world. The United States took on this obligation potentially when it became one of the world powers capable of encountering possible extraterrestrial artifacts within the solar system. For the same reasons, the obligation extends to any other nation or consortium, i.e., Russia, Japan, the European Space Agency, etc., that has the ability to confirm or disconfirm the artificiality hypothesis in future missions to Mars. By continuing to ignore this obligation, by giving the data no credence, and by ridiculing the independent researchers, NASA is committing a horrendous ethical and scientific blunder.
Dr. David C. Webb, a member of the President's Commission on Space under Ronald Reagan, stated the importance of the issue in this manner:
"Discovery of an ancient civilization on Mars would raise issues of enormous importance to our own civilization, not the least of which would be the question of why the civilization died out, and why and how Mars lost its water and atmosphere."[6]
Anthropologist Richard Grossinger describes the potential for human transformation inherent in the question posed by Cydonia in a more impassioned manner:
"Such an artifact has the unique potential to redefine who we are and what we are to become. More than the work of a thousand archaeologists and historians, it virtually screams: Rewrite Earth history. Look beyond the forgotten past. You are someone else entirely. You are not who you think you are. Act now, before it is too late." [7]
It is conceivable that the most pressing responsibilities of nations toward the peoples of the world, which are recognized by the United Nations and are being addressed by many of the world's governments, would be impacted in a positive direction and in a variety of ways by the discovery that the Martian enigmas are truly artifacts.
As the Mars Observer neared its goal in August of 1993, NASA made a number of general statements apparently intended to give the Congress and the public the impression that the Mars Observer would take the desired photographs and that they would be made accessible. On closer analysis, NASA's promises turned out to be more examples of misdirection. Now, with the Mars Global Surveyor mission nearing launch, NASA and the Camera Principal Investigator are making similar statements. Analysis of NASA's comments regarding the Mars Observer is therefore useful in evaluating NASA's current position.
In response to inquiries regarding photographs of the Cydonia landforms, NASA gave frequent generalized assurances that the Cydonia region was targeted for high-resolution photography. A typical example is the following (from Mars Observer Project Manager Glenn E. Cunningham):
"The Mars Observer Project will treat the Cydonia region as one of the many areas of interest on the surface of Mars and will allocate mission resources to taking data from this region using the same allocation of resources processes whereby other observations are considered and incorporated into the mission plan."[8]
In a letter of July 26, 1993, a NASA Public Affairs Officer, Donald L. Savage, made the following interpretation of Cunningham's announcement
"In essence, this announcement states that imaging the Cydonia region is a priority, and the best format and MOC [Mars Observer Camera] resolution available will be used to obtain the images."[9]
But contrary to Mr. Savage's interpretation, the Cunningham statement says nothing at all about priorities. It simply states that mission resources will be allocated using the same "processes whereby other observations are considered" What the result of these "processes" will be is not stated. It does not follow from this that the Cydonia landforms have any significant priority at all.
Mr. Savage's comment was very carefully worded. When he referred to "the images" an unsuspecting person would naturally think he means images of the Cydonia landforms; but he is referring to the Cunningham statement, which says nothing about the landforms in question. All "the images" means with reference to the Cunningham statement is images of various unspecified features in the Cydonia region, which is a vast area.
In fact, by referring to allocation of resources according to the mission plan, Mr. Cunningham was implying just the reverse of what Mr. Savage would have us think. The Cydonia region is much larger than the area containing the Cydonia landforms: The number of high-resolution photographs that can be taken in this region will be severely restricted (Less than 0.1% of the surface of Mars was expected to be photographed by the Mars Observer's narrow angle (high-resolution) camera, and the same presumably applies to the Mars Global Surveyor, which carries a duplicate of that camera).[10] The stated aim is to target areas "of the highest scientific interest." Dr. Malin has repeatedly indicated that in his view the Cydonia landforms have little or no scientific interest. It follows that there exists no mission rationale for giving the Cydonia landforms the level of priority needed to ensure high-resolution photographs will be taken.
Simple logic dictates that without a change in priorities, under current allocation of resources the landforms will, in the interest of efficiency, be bypassed.
These and similar statements by NASA appear to be false assurances. They give a vague impression designed to suggest to the reader that the Cydonia objects are a priority and will be photographed, but on careful analysis they are peppered with logical loopholes that amount to no assurance at all.
As of June, 1992, the NASA plan was to release "selected prints of interesting features on Mars" within one to two weeks after acquisition. All other images would be subject to a delay in release to the public of as much as six months, at the discretion of the independent Principal Investigator.
On April 29, 1993, possibly in response to mounting public pressure through direct inquiries to NASA and letters to Congress, Glenn E. Cunningham, the Mars Observer Project Manager, stated that a "near real-time" release of images, with a processing delay of hours rather than weeks, was "under consideration"
"Real-time images are not possible, because the data are recorded on the spacecraft and then played back when tracking stations are available for one 8-hour period each day, and second because of the processing time on the ground required to construct the actual image. However, after these delays (counted in hours), we plan to release a continuous stream of "near" real-time video data."[11]
This account of the delay period omitted an important fact. On an average of once every three days, there were to be eight hours of real-time transmission of Mars Observer Camera data.[12] Mr. Cunningham's account of the procedure did not mention this real-time capability. But whether the data was received in real-time mode or playback mode, NASA's plan to release video data in a continuous stream (what has frequently been called "live" transmission, e.g., in the Voyager mission) seemed a potential step closer to fulfilling NASA's public responsibility vis-a-vis the Cydonia landforms.
Then, on August 12, 1993, a letter from NASA Public Information Officer Donald Savage was a chilling indication of NASA's recalcitrance on the issue of data release and priorities. In answer to an inquiry by a citizen, Mr. Savage simply created a "collage" of all previous NASA commentary on the topic, most of which has been analyzed and critiqued in this report. Judging from this recent NASA statement, there was no change in priority assignments for the Cydonia objects, data release would still be subject to the decisions of the Principal Investigator and/or unknown individuals at JPL, only a restricted amount of "near real-time" display of "selected" images would be provided by Dr. Malin, and these would be provided only to two or three special sites in the United States. To view them, one would have to travel to Washington, D. C. or to Pasadena, California. One is compelled to ask: Why this unprecedented restriction to special sites?
"Dr. Michael Malin is working to develop a data transmission system that could provide near real-time images directly from an image processing computer at his company to image display computers at locatons like the National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.C., NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. At these locations, the public could view selected MOC images a relatively short time after the data are received."
With Mr. Savage's letter, the tentative promise of open release of data to the general public suggested earlier by Mr. Cunningham evaporated. NASA was still keeping careful control of the release of imaging data.
NASA's behavior over the past twenty years with respect to the Cydonia landforms has created a serious question regarding NASA's credibility and motivation. Along with the many other questionable actions on NASA's part documented herein, the June 1993 withdrawal of the statement that the Face "disappears" in "images of the same place taken at different lighting angles," followed by a NASA Public Information Officer's assertions that no change in NASA's position was implied by this crucial omission while at the same time admitting that NASA cannot identify the images, is, in my opinion, a severe blow to NASA's credibility. As NASA's credibility is seriously weakened, there is justifiable cause for the public and the scientific community to be deeply concerned about the possibility of data alteration or suppression.
Dr. Malin and the anonymous NASA commentator "Mr. Q" have both argued that there would be no reason for NASA to want to hide a discovery of extraterrestrial artifacts, on the grounds that to make such a discovery would bring NASA immediate increases in funding and bring unprecedented vitality to the space program. But this argument cuts more than one way. Indeed, it seems likely that the discovery of artifacts on Mars would bring about a worldwide rush to mount a manned expedition, and would give the space program a quantum leap forward. Given the positive results of Mars anomaly research to date, the rational conclusion to draw from this fact is that NASA would assign high priority to re-imaging the Cydonian objects. But instead NASA has gone out of its way to discourage interest in the topic. Rather than proving there is nothing worth investigation, this inconsistency raises questions regarding NASA's motivation.
In February 1992, newspapers reported charges made against NASA by Rep. Howard Wolpe, (D-Mich.). Wolpe released what was reported to be an internal NASA document titled "Suggestions for Anticipating Requests under the Freedom of Information Act." NASA employees were apparently encouraged to destroy drafts of documents where possible, to print rather than use their own handwriting in order to make the source of an annotation less easy to determine, to rewrite original notes in a less informative manner "and then destroy your old notes," and to avoid putting cross references in documents so as to minimize tracking of a discussion.
It was also suggested that employees make annotations using yellow stick-on tabs instead of writing directly in the margins of a document. If the documents were requested, the stick-ons could be removed from their original positions on the document and stuck on another sheet of paper in an order that would make it impossible to tell what portion of the original document they came from. Another dodge suggested was to involve an attorney immediately with any documents that might potentially be controversial, on the grounds that an attorney's "participation in the preparation of particular documents may serve as an additional basis for asserting that they are exempt from FOIA based on a claim of attorney work product privilege."
All this apparently not to confound enemy spies, but to make it difficult for private citizens, or agencies, or Congress, or the press, to obtain information to which they have a right under the Freedom of Information Act. If NASA actually did go to such extremes, there would be no reason to be confident regarding NASA's assurances that data from the Mars Global Surveyor regarding the Cydonia landforms will be released unaltered.
In 1960, a report titled Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs was delivered to the Chairman of NASA's Committee on Long-Range Studies.[13] The report, prepared by the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., under contract to NASA, was also delivered to the 87th Congress. In a section on "The Implications of a Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life," the report acknowledges the possibility that "artifacts left at some point in time" by intelligent life forms might be "discovered through our space activities on the Moon, Mars, or Venus."
The Brookings report directly questions the view that the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) would necessarily lead to an all-out space effort" Instead, the report notes the possibility that society might "disintegrate," or survive only by "paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behavior." Among the changes that might take place, the report suggests, are threats to political leadership and even revolution.
"The degree of political or social repercussion would probably depend on leadership's interpretation of (1) its own role, (2) threats to that role, and (3) national and personal opportunities to take advantage of the disruption or reinforcement of the attitudes and values of others."
In particular, the reactions of politically influential religious groups, including "fundamentalists," "antiscience sects," and "Buddhists," were a matter for concern. Noting that "Buddhist priests are heavily politically engaged in Ceylon," the report considered the potential reaction of such groups as an unknown factor that should be researched, in order to weigh the possible social consequences of their actions should an ETI discovery be announced.
Most significantly, the report indicated that the greatest area of concern might be that of the impact upon scientists themselves:
"It has been speculated that of all groups, scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures, since these professions are most clearly associated with the mastery of nature, rather than with the understanding and expression of man[kind]. Advanced understanding of nature might vitiate all our theories at the very least, if not also require a culture and perhaps a brain inaccessible to earth scientists."
As a result of these possibilities--that major social upheaval and psychological "devastation" of many scientists might occur (including the implied possibility that antiscience fundamentalist groups could attack scientific institutions and perhaps threaten individual scientists)--the report speaks of the possibility that scientists and other decisionmakers might interfere with the release of ETI information, even to the extent of withholding it altogether:
"How might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of the discovering scientists and other decisionmakers regarding release of the fact of discovery?"
The Brookings report clearly implies a need for "decision makers" and the (potentially) "discovering scientists" to investigate the possible social consequences of an ETI discovery and to consider whether such a discovery should be kept from the public in order to avoid political change and a possible "devastating" effect on scientists themselves--due to the revelation that many of their own most cherished theories could be mistaken.
Is NASA (or perhaps some highly placed officials within NASA) presently being guided by an unspoken policy to keep data on ETI from the public, based upon considerations like the ones brought up in the Brookings Institution report? The concept of withholding information on a possible extraterrestrial discovery conflicts with an understood NASA policy to the effect that information on a verified discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence should be shared promptly with all humanity.[14][15]
It is difficult to understand how this avowed open policy, to which NASA is said to be committed, is consistent with NASA's behavior following the discovery of Viking frame 35A72: The attempt, from the moment of discovery, to pass off the Face as a trick of lighting angle; the false claim that disproving photographs exist; the refusal to give any credence to serious research on the subject; the apparent mounting of public ridicule; the reliance on narrowly defined reductionist methodology; and reluctance to assign an appropriate level of priority to re-photographing the Cydonia objects coupled with an ambiguous, shifting policy regarding the prompt return of information to the public--all these appear to indicate either a policy confusion or a covert policy contrary to the public one.
Most telling, I believe, is the comment in the Brookings report that the science and engineering professions are most clearly associated with the mastery of nature, rather than with the understanding and expression of mankind. Dr. Sagan's belittling of "archeologists and the like" as having any voice in evaluating possible ET artifacts until the astronomers and geologists agree to let them in the door appears to be vivid evidence of this mind-set. It is important, also, that the potential cultural meaning and symbolic context of the geometric pattern discovered at Cydonia by Dr. Crater and anticipated in Torun's geometric model of the D&M pyramid is one which does not sit well with the materialistic-reductionist standpoint; Dr. Malin's dismissal of the mathematical and geometrical data from Cydonia as "numerology" is easily understood as a way of resisting the challenge to the reductionist paradigm inherent in the possible symbolism of the Cydonia Complex.
Anthropologist Randolfo Pozos has outlined how the Cydonia objects may present a challenge to fundamental beliefs and values. Describing how the Viking data affected some scientists, Pozos said:
"It was almost as if people immediately assessed the potential damage to their belief system and established immediate defenses"[16]
We should not forget that when Dr. Sagan was being shown the AOC photographs, it was reported that another planetary scientist refused to look at the images, actually placing his hands over his eyes in order to avoid seeing them.[17] The psychological phenomenon noted by Dr. Pozos, and predicted in the Brookings report, is a very real one. In 1979 Victor Marchetti, former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director and Special Assistant to the Executive Director of the CIA, indicated the presence of a governing motive within the CIA for suppressing evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence because of fear that knowledge of extraterrestrial intelligence could erode the existing power structure.[18]
The authority-centered motivation to suppress major paradigm shifts (changes in world view) has afflicted science ever since its beginnings. It is exemplified by the case of Galileo, whose reprieve by the Church for the heinous crime of saying that the Earth moves came only in 1992. Despite the upcoming NASA-Ames report, the question remains: Does this same motivation, perhaps on the part of a only few individuals in positions of authority, underlie the otherwise seemingly irrational attempts by NASA to discount Mars anomaly research as a factor in determining Mars exploration priorities?
It is not my place to contend here that NASA is following a policy of withholding information along the lines intimated by the Brookings report. I fervently hope that such is not the case. However, I find it extremely difficult to understand what policy does underlie NASA's perplexing behavior regarding the Cydonia landforms. The explanation that has been put forward by NASA, that planetary scientists have conducted a scientific evaluation of those landforms and have determined beyond reasonable doubt that they are entirely natural, is simply not believable in the light of the information presented in the main body of this volume. If, on the other hand, a policy of withholding information were operative (for reasons like those outlined in the Brookings Institution report), many of NASA's actions come into focus. At the very least NASA's ongoing behavior regarding the Cydonia issue is disingenuous, against the public interest, and demands explanation.
After the Mars Observer launch many concerned citizens wrote to members of Congress expressing their alarm over NASA's failure to assign priority to the Cydonia landforms, and requesting that NASA be held to account. I have received numerous copies of such letters. Often they include specific information regarding the Mars anomaly research and outline the reasons that NASA's position is untenable.
In every case the same scenario occurrs: The office of the member of Congress (who probably never personally sees the constituent's letter) sends the letter on to NASA with an innocuous "boilerplate" reply to the constituent. NASA sends back its standard response to the effect that the Face is an illusion of lighting angle, including the false claim that the Face "disappears in images of the same place taken at different lighting angles" and other irrelevant arguments, such as comparing the Face to New Hampshire's "Old Man in the Mountain."
The Senator or Representative's office would forward this material back to the constituent with another impersonal, meaningless cover letter, typically including phrases such as "thank you for your interest in the space program," or "If my office can be of assistance in other matters, please let us know." And that has been the extent of the exercise of responsibility by members of Congress.
It is as if NASA is running Congress, rather than the other way around. Whatever NASA says in this matter is taken as the last word. Only in the case of Robert E. Roe, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in 1990, was a specific request conveyed to NASA that the Cydonia landforms be made an imaging objective for the Mars Observer mission. Roe's request appears to have had no effect on NASA's priorities. There is, therefore, good reason to doubt that Congress will respond appropriately to public concern, or even that Congress is capable of so responding.
Click here to order The McDaniel Report.
FOOTNOTES
1. Hoagland, Richard C., The Monuments of Mars, page 6.
2. See Chapter Two under "The Missing Photographs."
3. Information supplied by Lawrence, Landis & Morgan, Attorneys at Law, Orlando Florida.
4. See "Questions of Credibility and Motivation" below.
5. Telephone conversation with John Billingham, NASA-Ames, on July 29, 1993.
6. Pozos, R. The Face on Mars, Foreword.
7. Grossinger, Richard, The Night Sky: The Science and Anthropology of the Stars and Planets. Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., Los Angeles, 1981, pages 244-245.
8. Letter from Glenn E. Cunningham to Mr. Lee F. Clinton, dated June 23, 1993.
9. Letter from Donald L. Savage of NASA to Mr. David Laverty, July 26, 1993.
10. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 97 No. E5, p. 7715; Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 28 No. 5, page 499.
11. Letter from Glenn E. Cunningham to Mr. Lee F. Clinton, dated April 29, 1993.
12. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 526-527.
13. The Brookings Institution report was brought to my attention by Mr. Don Ecker, Director of Research, UFO Magazine, Los Angeles, California. Mr. Lee Clinton tracked down the report.
14. Telephone conversation with John Rummel of NASA, July 29, 1993.
15. Telephone conversation with John Billingham of NASA-Ames, July 29, 1993.
16. Reference 2, page 114. The comment in brackets is my paraphrase.
17. This was reported to me by Dr. David Webb, former member of the President's Commission on Space, who was a witness to the event.
18. Marchetti, Victor, "How the CIA Views the UFO Phenomenon," Second Look, Vol. 1, No. 7, Washington, D.C., May 1979, pages 2-7. Marchetti was former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director and Special Assistant to the Executive Director of the CIA.