The U.S. Government's Policy on UFO Hoaxes

Why aren't UFO hoaxers sent to jail? Making false reports to law enforcement agencies is a punishable offense but hoaxing a UFO is not a crime under any known local, state, or federal statute. Even if it was, the United States Air Force has never had law enforcement jurisdiction except on their own bases and installations. Project Blue Book was given the job to investigate UFOs including reports from civilians, but there was a policy preventing them from exposing hoaxers. 

Our investigation began while pondering a statement from the Department of Defense’s Office of Public Information (OPI). Pan American pilot Captain Bill Nash was a witness and UFO advocate with questions for the Air Force. In a reply dated July 16, 1954, Captain Robert C. White replied saying:

"As stated in the enclosed fact summary, it is contrary to our policy to identify hoaxes in order to avoid embarrassing innocent parties."

From UFOs: A History 1954 June-August Supplemental Notes by Loren E. Gross, page 30.

The reprint of the letter didn’t not include the “Fact Summary,” so the hunt was on. The Air Force UFO files mainly concentrate on their investigations, not policy, but a few examples were found. The following material is best viewed as exhibits in an evidence folder. Not a comprehensive collection, a folio of some of the key suspects and prime offenders.   

 

The 1949 Flying Saucer Cover-Up 

Project Blue Book files contain a report from Nov. 3, 1949, about the Air Force’s investigation of Mikel Conrad’s UFO story. Conrad starred and directed in the film The Flying Saucer and he promoted it with the claimed that it featured real footage of a real saucer filmed in Alaska. 

The Pittsburgh Press, Sept. 18, 1949

When questioned, Conrad admitted it was to promote the movie, “not a reality.” The reports stated that Conrad asked them not to reveal “the fact that the saucer is a hoax,” which would hurt its take at the box office. They agreed. “OSI had no interest in his picture, since he had not actually sighted any unconventional object in the sky.” 

By the early 1950s, the Air Force estimated that less than 2% of UFO reports were due to hoaxes, but the phonies caused a disproportionate amount of effort to investigate. A review of the UFO cases listed in Project Blue Book files shows that the hoax label was most often applied to cases where photos or alleged UFO physical material were determined to be false. Many of the cases without physical evidence were evaluated as “Insufficient Evidence,” or Psychological.” The USAF developed a policy that no matter what the nature of the report, the names of witnesses were to be kept confidential.

 

The Public Disclosure of the USAF Hoax Policy

Science Service Staff Writer Allen Long interviewed an unnamed spokesman for the Air Force on the saucer issue for a Oct. 12, 1953, syndicated newspaper article. (Later reprinted as Science Digest Jan. 1954, "The Air Force Looks at 'Saucers'" and in Great Adventures in Science, 1956.) Long wrote:

“… the mystery apparently is made to grow deeper by an Air Force policy of not discrediting a person or organization. ...If the experts conclude that the sighter had hallucinations or that he deliberately concocted a hoax, the Air Force remains silent rather than discredit the person who turned in the report. No official statement is issued saying the sensational sighting was bunk. 

This assures the Air Force that other persons will continue turning in legitimate reports without fear of other persons will continue turning in legitimate reports without fear of public ridicule. It also means the Air Force will continue receiving a certain number of red herrings.” 

As reprinted in  in Great Adventures in Science, 1956.

 A few months later, this policy acknowledged in an official disclosure. The "Fact Summary" sent to Capt. Nash mentioned in our opening was actually the "Fact Sheet" issued in late 1953 (reprinted as “Plenty Going on in the Skies” in US News & World Report Jan. 1, 1954) which stated:

"The names of the persons involved in the sightings are withheld in respect of their privacy. They are free, however, to say what they please." 

[And three paragraphs later,] Although hoaxes comprise but a small percentage of total reports, some of them prove to be the most, sensational and the most publicized. However, to insure that the Air Force will not embarrass individuals or groups who are sincere in their beliefs or who may be victims of such hoaxes, the facts brought out in the investigations of these false reports are generally not made public. Unfortunately, this policy has often given the erroneous impression that the Air Force is deliberately denying or withholding. information which, if revealed, would prove the existence of ‘saucers'." 

US News & World Report Jan. 1, 1954

Captain Edward J. Ruppelt

In 1951, Captain Edward J. Ruppelt took over as head of the UFO investigation by the U.S. Air Force, and in 1956 wrote a book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. 

In the foreword he stated:

“In many instances I have left out the names of the people who reported seeing UFO's, or the names of certain people who were associated with the project, just as I would have done in an official report. …This policy of not identifying the ‘source,’ to borrow a term from military intelligence, is insisted on by the Air Force so that the people who have co-operated with them will not get any unwanted publicity.”

Ruppelt’s personal files included material used in the preparation of his book, and a few of them shed light on the policy. Ruppelt got into hot water over a hoax accusation in 1952.

Shell Alpert - Sunday Herald Aug 3, 1952

Seaman Shell R. Alpert supposedly photographed four UFOs above the Coast Guard Air Station at Salem, Massachusetts, on July 16, 1952. The New York World-Telegram and Sun reported on July 30, 1952, “Without questioning anyone’s integrity, Capt. Ruppelt said his first impression was the picture is a fake. He said the alleged saucers appear to have been painted in.” The Blue Book card for the case selected the box, “Unknown,” with comments stating, “open to doubt.” The monthly case listing booked it as “Unidentified.”

Ruppelt’s notecard on the Shell Alpert case:

“Photos

Coast Guard - I got into trouble on these. I said that I thought they were fakes. The CG didn’t like it. The photo lab didn’t believe that they were kosher because of the highlights. They were missing from the cars. They set up lights on the building and got highlights from them.”

Specific to hoaxers, there were two notecards, one by hand, one typed, with nearly identical comments. 

"Hoaxes:
Very few hoaxes, about 2%. They are usually elaborate and draw a lot of attention. The press helps out a lot in digging them out. Some cost the government a lot because of investigations or because they 'kick off' other reports. I wanted to really slap somebody. Photos are biggest hoaxes. Difficult to prove it unless the person admits it.”

The typed version included another line: "We are stymied because we can't give it away." 

1957: Public Accusations

Sometime in 1957, the new Blue Book head, Captain George T. Gregory, prepared a lecture for the Air Technical Intelligence Center, “The UFO Program.” In the brief section on “Hoaxes,” Gregory said, “Public relations must be maintained; we cannot, nor do we desire to initiate legal charges.” 

During the 1957 flap, the Air Force was bombarded by UFO reports, and Project Blue Book was busy trying to investigate and explain them. 

The Nov. 15, 1957, Department of Defense press release presented the Air Force’s “evaluation of recent Unidentified Flying Objects reports.” They made an unusual policy exception of labelling James Stokes’ and Reinhold Schmidt’s stories as a hoax, but did not name the men, just identified the incident locations: 

Alamogordo, New Mexico: "EVALUATION: Hoax, presumably suggested by the Levelland, Texas ‘reports.’" 

Kearney, Nebraska: “Investigation revealed that local officials consider originator wholly unreliable… EVALUATION: Hoax…”

See pages 16 &17 of UFOs: A History 1957 Nov. 13^th-30^th by Loren Gross. Information from the DOD was used in newspaper stories.

The Plain Speaker, Hazleton, Pennsylvania, Nov. 16, 1957,

“More 'Objects' Reported In Region; Air Force Discredits Space Stories”

The Rocket from Russia 

While not a typical UFO case, the following incident provides insight into how the Air Force usually dealt with hoaxers. On Oct. 29, 1957, Angelus Crest Hwy, California, a man made a phony Russian missile as a prank on his boss, but it went out of bounds when the authorities were called in. The man confessed and the investigator agreed not to expose hoaxer’s identity. Blue Book discussed featuring the case on a television show program along with other examples of hoaxes.

San Bernardino Sun, Oct. 31, 1957

The Air Force was taking a harder line with hoaxers and bluffed on a television show to deter hoaxers. The Armstrong Circle Theatre “UFO: Enigma of the Skies,” was broadcast live on January 22, 1958, and Colonel Spencer Whedon, Chief of the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) implied committing a UFO hoax was a federal crime:

“The important thing here is that this type of hoax besides being a violation of federal law, is a rather expensive joke. A single UFO investigation may well cost the government $10,000.”

The Hector Quintanilla Years

Hector Quintanilla came in as Blue Book head in 1963. During his tenure, the policy of not prosecuting hoaxer continued, but he was more active in exposing them publicly.

In The Skywrighter (Dayton, Ohio) April 15, 1966, TSgt. David N. Moody was interviewed about his retirement from Project Blue Book. On the topic of UFO hoaxes Moody said, “The Air Force has no means to take action against perpetrators. That it’s a matter for civil authorities.”

Dr. J. Allen Hynek echoed that impotency in a report dated June 4, 1968, to Blue Book chief, Lt. Colonel Quintanilla. Discussing Carroll Wayne Watts' claim that a hypnotist had manipulated him into hoaxing a UFO story, Hynek said (emphasis added):

"One of the original reporters called up, quite incensed, and asked whether I couldn’t get the Air Force to prosecute the hypnotist for unethical practices, etc., for having made a dupe of [Mr. Watts] and subjected him to public ridicule. I told him that first of all the Air Force did not prosecute in such cases, and that furthermore in such lawsuits it is the injured party who brings suit and that I hardly felt that the Air Force or I had been injured by the purported hypnotist’s actions."

Hector Quintanilla saw Blue Book through to its end in 1969. In his unpublished memoirs written in 1974, UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma, he said: 

“On a number of occasions, I was crucified because I labeled certain sightings as hoaxes. I always believe in calling a spade a spade, but sometimes in my position this became extremely difficult. What most critics didn’t realize at the time was that I had good evidence or good reason to label a sighting a hoax. Every sighting that I labeled a hoax turned out to be just that from the very beginning or was subsequently proven to have been perpetrated by an individual.” 

During Quintanilla’s tenure, several hoax accusations were made by the Air Force. Below are some prominent examples of Hector applying the heat to hoaxers: 

The April 29, 1964, multi-witness case involving five children at Canyon Ferry Village, Montana, was also called a hoax by an Air Force investigator.

The Billings Gazette, May 5, 1964

March 2, 1965: John Reeves of Brooksville, Florida, claimed to have seen a landed saucer and met the aliens. 

After Project Blue Book investigated Reeves story, “it is the opinion of the Air Force that an attempt was made to perpetrate a hoax.”

Rex Heflin took several UFO photos on August 3, 1965, and during the publicity that followed, Hector Quintanilla said Blue Book had investigated and, “We have classified it as a photographic hoax.”

Rex Heflin and one of the photos that brought him fame.

Dan and Grant Jaroslaw said they photographed a UFO on January 9, 1967, at Mount Clemens, Michigan. The Air Force didn’t say hoax, but after investigating, Dr J. Allen Hynek said there was “considerable doubt on the sighting and removes it from serious consideration.”

This Week, March 5, 1967

Immunity from Exposure

The findings of the government-contracted UFO evaluation led by Dr. Edward U. Condon was published as Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. It essentially followed the Air Force’s policy by not naming the witnesses in discussing the cases it examined. The study reached a negative conclusion on the value of the government continuing UFO research. As a result, Project Blue Book was closed in 1969. For a few years the UFO business was quiet, but in 1973 things heated up again. Without Project Blue Book to serve as a scarecrow, hoaxers had the run of the field.

Hattiesburg American (Mississippi) Oct. 19, 1973

We’ll close with a quote from Ed Ruppelt. His files also contained the original and revised drafts for his 1956 book. After his section on the 1947 Maury Island case, on page Ruppelt wrote:

"So long ago that nobody knows why, the government established a policy not to comment on anything that is written or said by private citizens. People can make any fantastic claim with a relatively high degree of immunity to being exposed… 
This policy has been a bonanza to the writers of saucer lore. The basic concept of 'saucerism vs. the Air Force' warfare is to print or say anything and as proof of your honesty, dare the Air Force to contradict you."

For whatever reason, those paragraphs were cut from Ruppelt's printed book.

. . .

Bonus:

 Bad Science Fiction

There were a few times The Air Force commented on UFO authors and their books:

Kenneth Arnold

In a July 12, 1947, report the investigator stated:

"It is the personal opinion of the interviewer that… if Mr. Arnold can write a report of the character that he did while not having seen the objects that he claimed he saw, it is the opinion of the interviewer that Mr. Arnold is in the wrong business, that he should be writing Buck Rogers fiction.”

George Adamski

On October 30, 1959, Major Lawrence J. Tacker replied to an inquiry about The Flying Saucers have Landed by George Adamski. Tacker replied:

“Mr. Adamski is a popular science fiction writer, but he has never presented any proof of his claims to the USAF.”

Frank Scully

On June 24, 1965, Col. Eric T de Jonckheere replied to an inquiry about a UFO book:

 “The incident referred to in Frank Scully’s book, “Behind [the] Flying Saucers” is not based in fact. The Air Force has no connection with this alleged incident. The Air Force considers this incident and Mr. Scully‘s book as science fiction.”

Donald Keyhoe

On Aug. 25, 1965, Col. Eric T de Jonckheere suggested this reply to an inquiry:

“The Air Force regards the books by Donald E Keyhoe on flying saucers as science fiction.”

Montana's Dubious UFO Landing of 1964

Late April 1964: The USA was abuzz with the news of a dramatic sighting in Socorro, New Mexico, that has since gone down in history as one of the most famous and credible UFO events of all time, the close encounter of police officer Lonnie Zamora. Before the month was over, possible corroboration came, a multi-witness report from Montana of a similar object landing and also leaving traces on the ground. 

The professionals responding to the scene, police officers, journalists and Air Force investigators, were impressed, but unfavorably. They thought the trace evidence pointed to a copycat hoax, not a UFO. Nevertheless, the five children who were the sole witnesses to the saucer landing stood by their story.

The Canyon Ferry Five

The events of April 29, 1964, as reconstructed below from witness testimony, media accounts and Project Blue Book documents. 

The place: Canyon Ferry Village, about 20 miles east of Helena, Montana.

The witnesses: Linda Davis, 11, Tom Davis, 15, Pete Rust, 13, Diane Flittner, 15, Linda Flittner, 16. Bill Bahny, 17, was not a witness, but became involved after the sighting.

The Canyon Ferry Five

The date: April 29, 1964, Wednesday evening around 9:30 P.M.

G.D. “Bert” Davis was the supervisor of the Bureau of Reclamation’s project at Canyon Ferry Reservoir. Davis and his wife Louise were out for the evening, and Linda and Tom, their two children were home, but not alone. With them were friends Diane and Linda Flittner and Pete Rust. The kids said they were playing hide and seek when the UFO appeared. 

Linda Davis, was inside the house and first spotted a glow through the curtains from her bedroom window. She rushed outside to tell her brother Tom and the other kids, ran to the fence where they saw a car-sized glowing oval-shaped object descending from a height of about 20 feet. It was about 150 feet away from them and it landed for less than a minute, then rose back into the air and whooshed off like a rocket. They found a patch of scorched grass and a singed cactus surrounded by an imperfect square formed by four holes in the ground, as if left by the UFO’s landing gear.

Project Blue Book evidence photo.

The kids recruited an older friend, Bill Bahny, 17, to call the sheriff’s office about the sighting, but he was told an adult should be involved in making the report. After this, apparently Bahny or the others called local radio stations about the sighting. About an hour later, Mr. and Mrs. Davis got home. The kids showed them the site, and Mrs. Davis said, “There was a funny smell around the holes, not like grass burning, sort of like diesel fuel.” An adult (probably one of Davis parents) called the sheriff, and two deputies were sent out to investigate. To preserve the scene, Bert Davis staked off the area with string and used white wooden frameworks from their rose garden to protect each of the four holes. 

Witness Linda Davis poses at the landing site. The Montana Standard Butte, May 1, 1964 

April 30, Thursday

The next day was a flurry of activity. Area newspapers printed the first articles on the story, and curious neighbors, newsmen, police and Air Force investigators swarmed over the scene. Sheriff Dave Middlemas said that they were initially doubtful of the report because it was so close to Vigilante Day, a popular time for kids to play pranks, but nevertheless, he had notified the Air Force. 

When newsmen asked the kids if they’d heard about the Socorro, New Mexico, UFO reported by police officer Lonnie Zamora, one replied, “Oh, yes. We heard all about it last night on the radio.”

Mrs. Cyril Taylor and her evidence kit.

Neighbor Peg Taylor was a saucer buff, and she tried to help the investigation. "She showed Linda Davis a picture from the book Flying Saucer from Mars, and asked, “Did it look like this?” Linda said, “Yes, it did.” Taylor replied, “Well, you probably saw a flying saucer.”

The Great Falls Tribune, May 1, 1964

The Billings Gazette reported Thursday that some skeptics believed the UFO story was a prank to set up a saucer-themed float in the Vigilante Day parade that Friday in Helena. The next day they reported that “Sheriff’s officers are skeptical. …the holes… could have been dug with a shovel. Loose dirt had been dumped in several spots within 50 feet of the holes.”

The Billings Gazette, May 1, 1964

On Thursday, five Air Force investigators arrived from Malmstrom AFB. They examined the “landing site” and interviewed the kids for three hours. Some news stories reported that some other people in the area had seen a bright light in the sky that night, and UPI story of May 1 reported that “Residents in the area reported there was a black out or snowy reception on their television at the time and reported sighting.”

The Billings Gazette, May 3, 1964

The Daily Inter Lake (Kalispell, MT), May 1, 1964

May 1, Friday 

The press continued, but the newspapers were not the only ones to cash in on  the saucer fever.

 The Independent Record, May 1, 1964

The Missoulian, May 1, 1964

The Canyon Ferry saucer was often mentioned in the press on the Socorro sighting, and chiefly interesting because of the landing site similarities.

El Paso Times, May 2, 1964

The Air Force "Leak"

On May 5,  it was reported that an Air Force spokesman said the case “was determined to be a hoax perpetrated on a younger sister and the show got out of control.”

The Billings Gazette, May 5, 1964

The hoax allegation didn't go over well with the children's parents.

The Independent Record, May 5, 1964

Apparently the “Air Force spokesman” had not been authorized to make the hoax statement, and they issued a denial.

The Billings Gazette, May 6, 1964

(NICAP’s) The UFO Investigator, July-Aug. 1964 carried a report on the Socorro case and briefly covered Canyon Ferry, stating: 

"The NICAP investigation has turned up conflicting information on the validity of the sighting, some of it backing up the Air Force conclusion of ‘a hoax..., a child's prank.’” The report concluded by saying, “A NICAP member spoke with two of the parents, getting a firm denial of any hoax from one, and a statement that he believed it was a hoax from the other. In an editorial on May 12, the Missoula, Mont., Sentinel sa1d that no one seemed to know where the Air Force got the idea the case was a hoax, and suggested the explanation - rather than the sighting - was a fabrication.”

What Project Blue Book Files Reveal

NICAP had suspected the Air Force conclusion of a hoax was itself a hoax, but the documents prove otherwise. The Project Blue Book 26-page file was labeled, “Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana, April 30, 1964,” and it includes documents, clippings and 11 photographs of the alleged landing site and burn marks.

View of the site and residences from the Canyon Ferry Reservoir shoreline.

Lt. Col. Harold L. Neufeld of Malmstrom AFB prepared the 5-page report summarizing their Canyon Ferry investigation, which had lasted four hours visiting the area, three of those hours interviewing witnesses. His team included a legal and information officer, as well as a photographer to document the evidence.

View towards the shore.

Neufeld noted that the holes supposedly caused by the UFO landing, “did not appear to have been caused by great weight. Rather the holes appeared to have been crudely dug or scooped out.” Describing the interviews of the children, “The witnesses were often vague and evasive and their respective stories contained such wide divergences to convince the interrogators that the entire event was a fanciful hoax.” 

There were six alleged witnesses, one of whom was not interviewed at his father’s request.” Of the five, “Four witness used the word ‘fluorescent’ to describe the lighting of the object.” Overall, their descriptions of the event were similar, “These consistencies indicated rehearsing by the witnesses.” They also found it suspicious that none of their parents had been told until more than an hour later, but, “The witnesses immediately notified the local radio stations of the alleged sighting.” The PBB record card for the case classifies it as a hoax, and the comments state: “Investigating officials consider case a Hoax with children recreating the marks of the Socorro sighting as carried in the local newspaper.”

The Canyon Ferry case always stood in the shadow of Lonnie Zamora’s Socorro, NM, sighting, but through the years, it is still included in many UFO histories and databases.

The Word of a Witness

The final local coverage of the Canyon ferry story was the editorial from The Missoulian on May 12, 1964, and it defended the witnesses against the allegations of the Air Force.

The Missoulian, May 12, 1964

The APRO Bulletin, July 1964, expressed a similar point of view in, “Kids Called Hoaxers By U.S.A.F,” stating: 

“We must, if we retain our reason and our ethics, believe the Davis and the Rust children and doubt the ‘findings’ of the experts, if indeed the reports of same were honest.  … We cannot believe that the truth and the details are being withheld by authorities to spare feelings - the kids have already felt the full impact of the ridicule as a result of the AF investigation and subsequent public announcement about the ‘prank.’ It is clear that the facts are being withheld at least in this instance and we can only wonder why.”

In 2012, ufologist Joan Bird was researching the Canyon Ferry case for her book, Montana UFOs and Extraterrestrials. She was able to locate two of the original players, Bill Bahny and Tom Davis. Bird wrote that, “When I interviewed Bahny in 2012, he told me he wouldn’t have called [the sheriff] if he’d thought it was a prank. 'They seemed genuinely scared.'” More significantly, she was able to reach one of the primary witnesses, Tom Davis. As an adult, Davis preferred the spelling of his name as Thom. 

Joan Bird spoke with Thom Davis by telephone on June 20, 2012. From chapter 4, "The Canyon Ferry Sighting - or Socorro Copycat?":

“...I was able to find Thom Davis, who still lives in the Helena area. According to Thom, it was a hoax. The 'witnesses' dug the holes, poured a little gas on the ground, and lit it. They colluded in the story of the glowing white object and its take-off over Canyon Ferry. Davis also reiterated what was said in the Blue Book report that the youths had been listening to KOMA radio out of Oklahoma City and heard about a UFO sighting in Socorro, New Mexico.”

So, it seems the Canyon Ferry case ended as it began, with a phone call. Over the decades, unsupervised kids have been responsible for very some interesting UFO reports. Kids of all ages.