Letter from Dr. J. Allen Hynek to Dr. James E. McDonald, 11 September 1970

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 60201

Dr. James McDonald
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721

Dear Jim:

I have been going over your Lakenheath article in FSR. I have gotten out my files on the case and, incidentally, if you are still interested in the names that were razor-bladed out of your copy, the A/2c was John L. Vaccars, Jr. [sic] and the Technical Segreant was Elmer L. Whenry. The names of the two interceptor pilots were First Lieutenant Charles V. Metz and First Lieutenant Andrew C. Rowe. Incidentally, also, I personally dismissed the meteor hypothesis immediately, as is pointed out in the Condon Report, page 255 of the Bantam edition.

However, all that aside, maybe you have some information that I don't have about the case, namely the thing that would tie down the passage of an object from east to the west, directly over Bentwaters, simultaneously visually by the tower operators and by the pilot overhead at 4,000 feet. In the letter to Condon, all we have is a third-hand statement. The writer states, "He said the tower reported seeing it go by . . ." So the writer is telling us that he heard from somebody else that the tower operator told him.

Now the Bentwaters report which covers the period 2120Z to 2220Z says nothing about an object passing directly overhead, although Vaccars indicates that at 2130, for a period of 30 seconds, he saw something go from 25 to 30 miles east-southeast of Bentwaters and fly on a constant course of 295 degrees to 15 to 20 miles west-northwest of Bentwaters. This could indicate that it passed overhead, but nothing is said of the object disappearing from the scope which would mean that it did not pass directly overhead, for it would have disappeared for a short time of that were the case.

The Lakenheath Report states that at 2255, Bentwaters sighted an object 30 miles east of station and that this object did disappear 2 miles east of station and then appeared 3 miles west of station. But now comes the catch: "Tower personnel at Bentwaters reported to GCA that a br5ight light passed over the field east to west at terrific speeds and at about 4,000 altitude". But at no place is it indicated that this was at 2255. The next paragraph goes on, "At the same time, pilot and aircraft at 4,000 feet . . ." That "at the same time" seems to me to refer not to 2255 but to the time the Tower personnel reported the bright light passing over the field.

Have you in any way been able to establish that the radar and visual sightings were indeed simultaneous? This would be a most important point in this whole thing and I, indeed, hope that you can. Nothing in my records, however, really pins this down.

I wonder whether the 2255 might in itself be in error? It seems that with all the things going on at Bentwaters from 2120 to 2220, that Lakenheath woulf certainly have been alerted earlier than 2255. Yet, the letter to Condon indicates that Lakenheath was not alerted until they had sighted the target going directly over them. Two points: why would have Bentwaters waited so long to alert Lakenheath and secondly, why is not the 2255 observation (if it is real) appearing in the report from Captain Holt and approved by Major Bixel? In that report it is stated, "Most significant are the reports of three sources of UFO beams tracked on the Bentwaters GCA radar". It seems to me that it would have been much more significant to have reported the simultaneous visual radar sighting because a visual object swooping by at low altitude and observed from the ground and from and below an aircraft, and simultaneously tracked on radar would have been far more significant than the radar alone sightings between 2120 and 2220. What do you think?

If the 2255 should, indeed, be 2155, it would tie in with the first period of Bentwaters sighitngs (if therewere two periods) but why in this case would not Captain Holt have mentioned it?

Any light that you can shed on this most important case would be appreciated.

I am pleased that you did mention in your article my memorandum which strongly urged "that further information on the technical aspects of the original observation be obtained, without loss of time . . ." Needless to say, nothing whatever was done and you would have had to know Captain Gregory and his totally warped personality (his one and only aim in life was to become Major) and he certainly was not going to do anything whatever to go against the Pentagon which had been told in no uncertain terms by the Robertson Panel that there was nothing to the whole subject. But then, you never have understood this and probably never will. Or perhaps you are beginning to understand somewhat as you note that your serious, strong, and I might say even emotional attempts to have the military and the scientific establishment take the subject seriously, have not exactly met with outstanding success. And yet the climate for acceptance today is, in my opinion, an order of magnitude more favorable.

One thing I will always have to thank you for and that is the day you came to my office and pounded the desk and said. "Allen, how could you sit on this data for 18 years and not let us know about it?". It was like a revelation to me. Here at last was finally one real scientist who was taking the subject seriously! Up to that point, I was becoming obsessed with the idea that "everybody was out of step but Johnny" and it was a great spiritual uplift to find at long last, another scientist seriously looking at it. I will freely admit that I originally approached the subject very skeptically for the first decade or so, largely because, as you well know, Blue Book data were so abysmally poor and no attempt was ever made to upgrade them, even when I repeatedly suggested this. So, despite your criticisms, I do have much to thank you for and I hope we may work together productively in the future.

Sincerely yours

s/s J. Allen Hynek
Director

JAH/al
CC: Charles Bowen