Tuesday, February 14, 2012


Copyright 2012, InterAmerica, Inc.


A formerly classified letter from early 1950 reveals that the Father of Nuclear Medicine and the Chief of Medical Research for the US Air Force discussed “bizarre details” surrounding the crash of a flying saucer that had occurred sometime prior. These two distinguished Men of Science from the 1940s and 1950s may have had insight into the UFO phenomenon that went far beyond what most at the time knew about fallen ET.

Remarkably, in this same document mention is made of the work of a Battelle Memorial Institute-associated psychologist who was studying UFO sightings for the US Air Force. This was the very same organization that was tasked to conduct metallurgical studies of the UFO crash “memory metal” found at Roswell in 1947 (as related in this author’s series of articles on Battelle.) This psychologist was also associated with the Aero-Medical Lab at Wright Field – the same lab that new testimony says conducted the examination of alien corpses.


USAF Col. Robert Blount was the Chief of the Medical Research Division for the Air Force’s Office of the Surgeon General. Each branch of service has a “Surgeon General” office that is distinct from the Surgeon General of the United States. For several years, including in 1950, Blount led the Air Force’s innovation and development activities in a range of medical areas. This included in aero-flight medical research, aircrew health assessments, laboratory analysis and aviation biology. He was also associated with the US Research and Development Board. Blount was later named Deputy Commandant of the esteemed Air Force School of Aviation Medicine.

Dr. Robley Evans, MIT Scientist

Dr. Robley Evans was a world-famous MIT scientist. He was named Professor Emeritus of the Cambridge institution and he is universally acknowledged as the “Father of Nuclear Medicine.” He was awarded the prestigious Enrico Fermi Award for his pioneering work on the effects of radiation on the human body. The Fermi Award is the highest award given by the US Department of Energy. Evans technical achievements were diverse and included those in areas such as histochemistry, blood and tissue preservation and physics. Evans built MIT’s first cyclotron or “atom-smasher” and the first such system in the world for medical and biological use.

That these two men of science (in the fields of flight biology, medical research and body studies) were professionally discussing the crash of a flying saucer in an official and classified document is remarkable. And if this crashed saucer was piloted, these scientists, considering their specialities, would no doubt have interest in the alien bodies.



In this letter between the two scientists (previously classified “Restricted”) concerning official government UFO study, Blount writes to Evans on March 10, 1950:

“It is recently rumored that one of the so-called flying saucers crashed in Mexico; however, the details are somewhat bizarre at the moment.” Just before this sentence, Blount discusses with Evans that he has also received information that “a new report is in the process of being published and will be classified “Top Secret.”

Here is the telling document:


In the letter Blount also alludes to a report by a psychologist who had collaborated with Battelle on early UFO study. This psychologist (unnamed in the letter) was Dr. Paul M. Fitts, an Ohio State University Professor in Columbus, OH (where Battelle is headquartered.) Dr. Fitts, for instance, played a role in designing and developing UFO sightings questionnaires (which Battelle referred to as “Observer Interrogation Forms”) according to a formerly Secret Battelle “Status Report.” Fitts also consulted with Wright Patterson on classified projects areas such as psychology and aero-medical research. Blount requested that Evans return to him Fitt’s sightings report (that Blount had enclosed with the letter) after Evans had read it. Battelle’s involvement in ‘things UFO’ was to be kept under wraps at all costs. For instance, the USAF’s UFO investigator Edward J. Ruppelt would only refer to Battelle as “Project Bear” or “a research organization in the Midwest” when discussing their UFO work. And Dr. Howard Cross of Battelle became very angry with the USAF’s UFO investigator Dr. J. Allen Hynek when Hynek inquired about a memo (called ‘Pentacle’) that concerned details of Battelle’s earlier UFO studies. {Thanks is extended to Bob Koford for providing key data on this letter for this article}


In the April 10, 2009 article by this author entitled “AF Roswell Study Contributor Admits: It Was ET” (appearing on the UFO Iconoclasts website) I relate my interview of Lt. Col Ray Madson. Madson led the “crash test dummy” project that the Air Force said in their 1997 debunking report accounted for the alien corpses seen at Roswell. Madson explained that he was “used” by the Air Force and he also related to me another stunning story. He explained that his wife, whom he met at Wright Patterson, was employed as an Administrator at the Wright Aero Medical Laboratory in the early 1950s. This is the very same lab that Blount’s letter refers to and that Dr. Paul Fitts was consulting to on UFO matters. And it was during this very same time and at this same laboratory that Madson’s wife told me that she had heard ‘honest talk from honest people’ about ET bodies that had been ‘brought in’ some years prior from a crash in the Southwest.



Who Said It and Why: The letter reveals that a high level USAF officer who led medical research was made privy to discussion of a crashed UFO, likely from the late 1940s. This officer must assign some possible validity to this “talk” to have then related it to an esteemed MIT scientist. He relates this information in a professional capacity on a restricted basis. He addresses Evans as “Dr.” and he signs the letter with his rank and title. This is not “idle talk” between friends - it is talk between professionals. Blount had obviously heard about the crash event while at Wright (or at the Pentagon) from sources that he implicitly trusted or he would not even have mentioned such a thing to Dr. Evans. He indicates to Dr. Evans that the “details” about the flying saucer crash are “somewhat bizarre at the moment.” This means that Col. Blount is aware of specific aspects of the crash and that he has a more intricate understanding of it that he has not included in the letter to Dr. Evans. Whether these “bizarre details at the moment” were clarified to Col. Blount at a later date remains unknown. “Bizarre” is an interesting choice of words and is intentionally used by Blount. These “details” about the crash are certainly of an unusual nature involving unexpected elements. Just what are these “bizarre details”? Over six decades of research later, I think that we know full well what they are:

The Letter Likely Refers to Roswell: Evans says that he heard that the flying saucer crash occurred in Mexico- but I believe that in the retelling –or perhaps on purpose to obfuscate the details- “Mexico” is meant to be “New Mexico” as in Roswell, NM. It cannot mean the alleged UFO crash south of Del Rio, TX on Mexican soil because this allegedly occurred on December 6th of that year and the letter was written in March. The letter was composed about 70 days into the year 1950. Col. Blount refers to the crash in the past tense, as in ‘sometime prior’ to 1950. He is most certainly referring to an event that occurred in the late 1940s. Could he have been referring to the Roswell crash in New Mexico two and a half years before and that credible “rumors” of the event were just then reaching Col. Blount?

The Possible Implications of the Letter: The fact that the officer included any mention at all of a crashed saucer (or rumors thereof) in a letter that otherwise concerned itself with serious, US-government authorized UFO study is in and of itself thoroughly remarkable. Given the extraordinary achievements of Dr. Robley Evans it is inconceivable that Col. Blount would waste the time of the very busy Dr. Evans to even mention such a paradigm-shifting thing had he not felt that the flying saucer crash talk that he had been made privy to did indeed have veracity. He would not have uttered anything about it to Evans had Blount not believed his source.

Is it possible that the aero-medical man Col Blount had later learned the truth about the unidentified aerial recovered at Roswell? Did Blount receive further “details” about the event that he had sought? Was he later himself involved in the ‘body studies’ of alien pilots?


Saturday, February 4, 2012



Like CGI, RC has forever blurred what is real and what is not in the world of UFOs. Radio Control (or Remote Control) is more prevalent and accessible today than ever before. And in recent years there have been astounding advances in such remote signal technology. Its cost is no longer prohibitive. CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) has today made our ability to trust any UFO video on sites such as YouTube very difficult. In the same way, because of RC, we cannot be certain that UFO sightings made today are ‘real’ or not. RC vehicles likely account for many UFO sightings, whether they are intended as hoaxes or whether they are simply misidentified as extraterrestrial vehicles when seen in flight.

Regular readers know that I am not a skeptic and that I am convinced of the reality of the visiting alien. But I am also a critical thinker and know that the compulsion to hoax is often a dynamic that is ignored to the detriment of UFO proponents. We have to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. We must be aware of emerging technologies that may impact on the veracity or truth of reported UFO sightings. Just as Kodak and Polaroid ignored the digital revolution, the UFO research community was slow to realize the enormity of the use of CGI and Photoshop imagery in purported UFO films and photos. Similarly, we are now in danger of ignoring the potentially enormous role that RC technology increasingly plays in ‘things UFO’ and how hoaxes are made.



Rather than focus on expert RC engineers and industry professionals and their incredible capabilities, I have opted to highlight amateur attempts at UFO radio controlled flight. All of these filmed “UFO experiments” are ‘homemade’ or are done by small operations, teenagers or younger people. These short video clips may provide insight into the true nature of many historic UFO sightings and footage. Perhaps found within these films are the solutions to past UFO mysteries and to those that will no doubt be encountered in the future:

Amateur’s Flying Saucer Could Fool Anyone from a Distance
(Simply awesome, especially the first minute):

Stunning 12 Second Clip of a Fake Flying Saucer
(Appears like a tailless circular craft zipping impossibly through the clouds)

Saudi Teen Creates UFO More Convincing than CGI
(Advance/begin at :51 seconds and compare to similar ‘genuine’ UFO footage)

Balloon RC that Could be an Answer to Socorro
(Note footage from 1:39 if Zamora’s red insignia were emblazoned on its side)

The Solution to the “Flying Humanoids” Phenomenon Revealed
(May help to explain recent films of ‘Unidentified Flying Humans’)

RCs and UFOs


Advances in radio signal and digital technology (combined with advances in ‘craft’ flight stabilization) have enabled even the average kid to do this:


Note about one quarter of the way through this brief video of an RC that it is capable of silent hovering and of extreme vertical takeoff like a shotgun (and like many UFOs are purported to be able to do.)

Today’s RC capabilities are indeed amazing, but even the technologies beginnings were impressive. The first known public use of remote radio control technology was in demonstrating the maneuvering of a small boat at a distance by Tesla in 1898. During WWII (and after with the advent of the transistor) such technology was further perfected for military, aerial and industrial applications. But by the early 1950s, “remote control” model vehicles and hobbyist aircraft (often self-built) were in the hands of many high school and college age males with a geek sense. By the 1960s (as recounted by a mid-1960s alum of New Mexico Tech) students in Socorro had constructed an unidentified aerial ‘vehicle’ controlled by radio signals that jammed operations at White Sands!

From that period on, RC was perfected by hobbyists and hoaxers while ignored by UFO “investigators” as a possible solution to some sightings.

Today there are whole ‘underground’ online communities that bring together RC hobbyists with a special interest in fake UFOs (such as forum.xufo.net, a Dutch ‘multi-copter’ enthusiasts site.) When the angle and light is just right, the “RC UFOs” are indistinguishable from the “real UFOS.” They may cause us to have to reevaluate film and photos from the past and to be far more vigilant in the future.