The Birth of NICAP

Things get complicated when you get past eighteen

But the class of '57 had its dreams

- The Statler Brothers, The Class of '57

 

Preorder the e-book now.
Paperback also now available.

    In 1956 an eclectic group of community leaders began meeting around Washington, D.C. Among them were T. Townsend Brown, an inventor with an eye on antigravity technology; Morris K. Jessup, a UFO investigator and author; Clara John, the original ghostwriter for George Adamski; and Maj. Donald Keyhoe, a writer with a belief UFOs represented interplanetary spacecraft. Inspired by Clara John's flying saucer club, they laid the foundation for the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, or NICAP. 

Initially led by T. Townsend Brown, NICAP formally applied for incorporation in August 1956. The group was incorporated by Brown and two representatives from a consulting firm, Counsel Services, Inc., with which Brown had an ongoing relationship. The representatives acting as NICAP incorporators were the president of the firm, Mary Vaughan King, and a former State Department employee, Thomas D. O'Keefe. From the certificate of incorporation (see page 3):

Vaughan King soon left NICAP. Likewise, O'Keefe rapidly resigned as treasurer, and the organization would have its next treasurer come and go just as quickly. Brown was destined to have a short stint at the helm, as well.

Maj. Donald Keyhoe landed in the director's chair in January 1957, and NICAP operated under his guidance the next 13 years. A public relations campaign drew some 14,000 members. The org collected and investigated UFO sightings, accused the Air Force and CIA of conducting a cover-up, and pushed for and obtained Congressional hearings on UFOs. 

Within a year of the release of a 1969 Air Force-sponsored UFO report resulting from the hearings, Keyhoe and top personnel departed NICAP amid accusations of CIA interference. A former CIA officer on the Board of Governors was widely suspected of dismantling the org. A close look, however, reveals NICAP beginnings were just as much in question.

Mary Vaughan King and associates announced the formation of the Baltimore-based Counsel Services in March 1947. From a Baltimore newspaper:

A March 1949 letter to the Economic Cooperation Administration was authored by then-Director of Central Intelligence and future NICAP chairman of the board Adm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter. The ECA was a government office headquartered in Washington. Hillenkoetter and the CIA clearly had an ongoing relationship with the Administration, and expressed a desire to increase the amount and security clearance of intelligence obtained from the ECA:

A May 1949 clipping from The (Baltimore) Evening Sun indicates Counsel Services was working "under ECA auspices":

A 1950 article reported Counsel Services had "specialists" under contract with the ECA:

 

In 1956, immediately after acting as a NICAP incorporator, Mary Vaughan King of Counsel Services presented Townsend Brown a contract for approval (see pages 6-7). Among other items of interest, the contract stipulated additional consultants may be retained as needed to work under the supervision of Counsel Services officers, namely former State Department man Thomas D. O'Keefe and her:

Circumstances as documented above, combined with additional information presented in my new book, Wayward Sons: NICAP and the IC, strongly suggests an intelligence community interest in the birth of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena. The e-book version of the book is currently available for preorder and will drop on or about August 21. The paperback version is also now available. 

Preorder E-Book 'Wayward Sons: NICAP and the IC'

     Wayward Sons: NICAP and the IC is now available for preorder in e-book format. Your Kindle purchase will download on or about Saturday, August 21. Cost is $9.99. A paperback version will be offered about the same point in time. Below please see the table of contents and introduction contained in the nonfiction book.

Please note the e-book may be most suitable for certain readers. The book frequently references a variety of linked sources, so the links are easier to navigate in e-book form. Another consideration is a number of images of documents are provided which may be most effectively viewed on an electronic device. Also, I did not create an index for the paperback since an e-book is searchable. While I created a paperback version because I understand some readers prefer a hardcopy book, I encourage taking the above circumstances into account and giving some thought to what will offer you the best reading experience when choosing a format. [UPDATE: I received a proof copy of the paperback and the images of documents transferred quite well. I would therefore say the most important issues in choosing your preferred format are if it is important to you to have live links and a searchable medium.]

Thank you for your interest. Should you choose to obtain the book, I sincerely hope you find it a worthy read.

To request a review copy, email subject line "Wayward Sons" to jackbrewerblog@yahoo.com and I will reply with a pdf version of the e-book.

Introduction

    The significance of the NICAP story is subjective. Like many historical sagas, it depends on who you ask as to what it meant, and, in some cases, what even happened. Select events can be established from records and archives, and we will certainly examine them, but the fact remains people have differing ideas about what was most important and most interesting about the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena.

It is notable that the NICAP saga may be viewed in at least two contexts. One, which is my interest, is the organization's intersection with the intelligence community. A second, and more commonly viewed context, is NICAP UFO investigation. People interested in UFOs understandably want to know if the group learned anything important. The investigators of NICAP sure thought so, but dissecting the situation leads us to the paradox of the matter. The story of NICAP, and what is most significant about it, is not so easily discerned.

Did NICAP do some good work? Yes, it did. Were NICAP investigators credulous? Yes, that's true too, depending on specific circumstances considered. Was NICAP a CIA front? That might be accurate as well, short lived and/or intermittent as it may have been. Did NICAP rattle swords with the CIA and Air Force about a UFO cover-up? Yep, it certainly did. Was the CIA monitoring NICAP? It sure appears so, to more and less extents and depending on the particular circumstances. Did the CIA dismantle NICAP? Maybe so, or, at the least, it is true that CIA associates did basic managerial work for NICAP throughout its lifespan and stages of decline. Did NICAP run itself in the ground through financial mismanagement? Yes, to an extent it did indeed, which also means the CIA was not fully responsible for its demise, at least not necessarily. Much like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, many perspectives are correct to some extent, depending on how one comes at it.

Many feel NICAP was derailed by the Central Intelligence Agency. Perceived motives often include thwarting UFO investigation and destabilizing the group's effort to challenge the Condon Report, which was an Air Force-sponsored assessment that minimized the saucer situation. The presence of CIA associates in the saga is clear enough, but motives are much less so. We will consider the circumstances along with the perspectives of those familiar with the events.

I actually came to strongly suspect the CIA was substantially involved in the incorporation and initial operation of NICAP. We will explore this in detail on the coming pages.

Ironically, I am not convinced the situation significantly impaired or even particularly affected the way Maj. Donald Keyhoe would run the outfit for the next 13 years. During his tenure there was some overt CIA interest in NICAP activities, as well as some possible not so overt interest. The activities of CIA psychological warfare specialist and NICAP Board of Governors member Col. Joseph Bryan III will be explored, as will profiles of his intelligence colleagues from the Office of Policy Coordination. We will examine those situations along with some surrounding spectacles that found their ways into a NICAP orbit.

A focus of this book is NICAP's relation to the intelligence community, particularly the CIA and FBI. We will draw upon documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), newspaper clippings, and many more cited sources.

Much of the material referenced was obtained from records published on the websites of intelligence agencies or by submitting my own requests under the FOIA. As of this writing, several FOIA requests remain open. I will post the material at my blog, The UFO Trail, as it is received.

Another primary source for information covered in this book was NICAP files provided by researcher and archivist Barry Greenwood. I am tremendously grateful to him for supplying the material.

A 69 MB folder provided by Mr. Greenwood consists of 42 pdfs containing NICAP records. It may be accessed in whole on Google Drive or as individual files I will reference and link, as will be the case with many additional sources.

I apologize in advance for the errors which will inevitably inhabit this offering. I hope we find them few, far between, and of minimal consequence.

I am thankful to all who helpfully fielded my questions, provided material, and assisted me in reaching people of interest. I also thank all the researchers whose work and materials are cited. Select archives played key roles as well, and I am grateful to their administrators for their valuable assistance.

Thanks to those who maintain intelligence agency online reading rooms. I am grateful to the FBI, NARA, CIA, NSA, USAF, and the many FOIA officers at several agencies who filled my requests, informed me when no material was available, conducted correspondence, and continue to process records pertaining to this saga. Their work is important and appreciated.

I am grateful to the friends, loved ones, and acquaintances who supported this effort. Your messages, encouragement and phone calls are important to me. Thank you.

I am grateful to you for joining me on an exploration of events beginning some 70 years ago. Thanks for coming along. In doing so, we will hopefully catch a meaningful glimpse or three of what took place. I trust you will share the interest I developed, and find that circumstances from years gone by tend to shed light on more recent events.

CIA Conducts MDR on Bluebird Docs

     The CIA recently conducted a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) of a file containing Cold War era documents pertaining to Project Bluebird. The action resulted from a 2020 request for an MDR submitted by this writer. The Agency provided the updated file today by email. It may be compared to the previously released file originally obtained from the CIA online reading room. 

Research conducted on members of the Board of Governors of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, or NICAP, contributed to interest in requesting further declassification of select Bluebird records. Inaugural Director of Central Intelligence Roscoe Hillenkoetter initially approved the project which ultimately led to MKULTRA. Hillenkoetter, who directed the CIA from 1947-1950, went on to act as NICAP Chairman of the Board from 1957-1962. NICAP, an organization which investigated UFOs, was launched in 1956.  

NICAP Board staple Col. Joseph Bryan III was later identified as a CIA officer who directed a psychological and political warfare subdivision within the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). The OPC operated on CIA funding in conjunction with directives expressed by the State Department from 1948-1952. At that point it was merged with the Office of Special Operations and the two became the Directorate of Plans, effectively forming the CIA Clandestine Services.  

The above referenced Project Bluebird records indicate representatives from the OPC were included on a short list of eyes only personnel providing support for the operation. While it has long been known Hillenkoetter approved the project, the MDR nonetheless offers a bit further insight into the circumstances, such as the DCI's signature shown in the image below on a 1950 memo, along with the indication of OPC involvement.

Page 19 of the updated file was newly released as a result of the MDR. The document is a 1950 memo discussing responsibilities related to the interrogation of Robert Vogeler, accused of espionage in Hungary on behalf of the United States. The now declassified memo appears to be part of a volley of communications pertaining to interrogating Vogeler with Bluebird methods should he be released from prison and accessible to the Agency. 

The CIA would go on to fund a study of Hungarian immigrants within Project MKULTRA. Subproject 69 sought to improve psychological warfare techniques hindered by the Iron Curtain. Hungarians fleeing to the U.S. from conflict were perceived as opportunities to better understand how techniques could be made more effective. MKULTRA was formally approved by DCI Allen Dulles in 1953.

Memos contained in the above referenced Bluebird file outline project objectives and methods, which included increasing the effectiveness of interrogation techniques. Specifically, one memo states, "The purpose of this project is to provide for the immediate establishment of interrogation teams for the operational support of OSO [Office of Special Operations] and OPC [Office of Policy Coordination] activities." This was to be accomplished through the use of such tools as speech inducing drugs, narcoanalysis and hypnotism. 

Offices with the appearance of medical facilities were to be set up in Washington, D.C. The OPC and Office of Special Operations were designated to provide support and undercover staff. 

It might be considered difficult to identify if such documents tell us more about the NICAP Board members or the obsession of the CIA with such lines of research. Either way, it seems reasonable to give deeper consideration to the full employment histories of people often projected to be UFO Disclosure heroes. The pro-UFO quotes of DCI Hillenkoetter are frequently promoted in certain social media circles. His support for unethical human research projects, not so much.

Office of Secretary of Defense: DIA Ran AATIP Until It Ended in 2012

    The AATIP was managed by the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2008 until it ended in 2012, a Government Information Specialist from the Office of the Secretary of Defense stated in an email received Wednesday. The statement comes on the heels of a FOIA final response indicating a search conducted by the DIA found no correspondence, such as emails or memos, exchanged between Luis Elizondo and the DIA pertaining to the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. The message also comes in the wake of a May 24 email in which Pentagon Spokesperson Sue Gough stated DIA managed AATIP and Elizondo was not assigned to DIA. 

Email received Wednesday, June 30, stemming from FOIA request
for OUSDI records pertaining to AATIP and AAWSAP 

Elizondo and his associates have repeatedly claimed he directed the AATIP, and have specifically stated his directorship began in 2010 from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, or OUSDI. Pentagon spokespersons have repeatedly stated Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP while assigned to the OUSDI.

The Wednesday email came as the result of a FOIA request seeking documents on the AATIP and AAWSAP, or Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Applications Program. The request for records on the apparent Pentagon UFO projects was submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff (OSD/JS) with the intention of initiating a search for potentially responsive files located in the OUSDI. 

A final response to the request was received June 24 attached to an email from Government Information Specialist Raymond Hartwick of the OSD/JS FOIA Requester Service Center. The response stated the request had been misdirected and should be sent to the DIA.

A reply to the email was sent, informing Mr. Hartwick of an understanding there are allegations the AATIP was transferred into the OUSDI from the DIA. He was therefore asked if the request was submitted to the proper office that would respond to FOIA requests for the OUSDI, and, if not, would he please advise as to where to submit the request to the OUSDI. 

Having not heard back from Mr. Hartwick by Tuesday morning, he was telephoned. A voice mail message was left, reiterating a desire to submit the request to the OUSDI. Wednesday afternoon he emailed, assuring the expressed questions had not been forgotten.

"I am still working with my components to provide you with accurate answers," he added in the email.  

Later Wednesday afternoon another email, pictured above, was received. The message did not address the FOIA submission process for the OUSDI and again advised to direct the request to the DIA. Mr. Hartwick further stated, "The AATIP was managed by DIA from 2008 until it ended in 2012."  

DIA FOIA Search Finds No Correspondence With Elizondo Pertaining to AATIP

    The Defense Intelligence Agency responded to a FOIA request that a search found no correspondence, such as emails or memos, exchanged between Luis Elizondo and the DIA pertaining to the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. The request was submitted in 2018, with a final response issued in a pdf dated June 24, 2021, and delivered Monday by email.

Alluding to FOIA requests submitted by several researchers, the DIA response went on to state the Agency is currently reviewing all of its AATIP holdings and preparing the documents for release. Upon DIA release, the material will be made available for viewing in an online FOIA Reading Room.  

The body of the response:

Luis Elizondo did not immediately respond to an opportunity to comment for potential inclusion in this blog post.

The DIA was credited with launching the AATIP in 2007. The project reportedly transferred to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in 2010, and was shelved in 2012.

Elizondo has repeatedly asserted amid doubts and criticism that he directed the AATIP and worked on it for some ten years. Sen. Harry Reid supports the claim Elizondo ran the project. 

Official statements, directly opposing his claims, have repeatedly been issued from Pentagon spokespersons. Elizondo has done himself no favors in failing to present adequate documentation, or even committing to a particularly coherent narrative.

Some question why Elizondo, who describes himself as an extensively experienced counterintelligence professional, would be selected to head a program investigating aerospace threats. Others suspect his interest in UFOs was much less official than typically portrayed, and that he encouraged public misunderstanding through writers such as Leslie Kean and George Knapp, while at other times simply selectively omitting more accurate context.   

In an email exchange conducted earlier this year with Pentagon Spokesperson Sue Gough, this writer qualified an understanding the position of the DOD is that Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities in the AATIP while assigned to the OUSDI. That being the case, it was asked if it would be possible to clarify who was assigned responsibilities to direct the AATIP.

"The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) managed AATIP," Ms. Gough replied. "Luis Elizondo was not assigned to DIA." 

Daniel Sheehan, an attorney with a long history of advocating alien visitation and taking up UFO-related issues, filed a complaint on behalf of Elizondo with the Department of Defense Inspector General. The document reportedly included Elizondo's assertions a disinformation campaign was undertaken against him. Personal vendettas were to blame, it was alleged, for DOD official denial of his AATIP position and responsibilities.  

Several internet bloggers were notified by the Pentagon he had no duties in the AATIP, Elizondo reportedly asserted in the complaint to the Inspector General. This, the complaint continued, resulted in the bloggers accusing him of fabrication.  

A FOIA request for the complaint was submitted in May to the DOD IG. It responded in a letter dated June 2 that any documents that may be responsive are compiled for a law enforcement inquiry. Release of the documents, at this time, could reasonably be expected to interfere with the inquiry, the response added. The material could be requested and reviewed again at a later date for potential exemption to disclosure and possible release. 

DIA Says Don't Expect Pentagon-UFO Program Docs Earlier Than Late 2022

The Defense Intelligence Agency sent notification the estimated completion date for five FOIA requests pertaining to apparent Pentagon UFO programs is now Dec. 30, 2022. An estimated date of completion is only an estimate, the DIA emphasized in its June 3 letter to this writer.

UFO researchers submitted a variety of FOIA requests to various agencies in the wake of the Dec. 2017 New York Times article on the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. Requests seek verification of pertinent AATIP information, as well as circumstances surrounding the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program. Both projects have been reported to be significantly involved in UFO investigation. Researchers continue to await final responses to the most salient of their FOIA requests.

The five FOIA requests referenced in the recent DIA letter:

FOIA-0087-2018 seeks all contracts pertaining to the AATIP, including contracts undertaken with and funding provided to Bigelow Aerospace.

FOIA-0259-2018 requests all mission statements, contractual records, calls for proposals, lists of funding recipients, amounts of funds awarded, budgets, and documents pertaining to the AAWSAP. Also sought are all reports composed by program personnel, reports submitted by funding recipients of the program, lists of contractors and subcontractors, and any related files.

FOIA-0271-2018 seeks copies of all proposals funded, project updates and reports submitted, contractual records, funding recipients, amounts of funds awarded, budgets and documents related to the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program - Solicitation HHM402-08-R-0211.

FOIA-0003-2019 requests all contracts undertaken with and funding provided to Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies from 1998 to present.

FOIA-0258-2019 is a request for all correspondence, such as emails and memos, between Luis Elizondo and the DIA pertaining to the AATIP as described by Pentagon Spokesperson Susan Gough. 

Related final responses already received from the DIA include FOIA-0088-2018, in which copies were requested of all DIA contracts undertaken with and funding provided to the National Institute for Discovery Science from 1995-2004. The DIA indicated no documents responsive to the request were found.

FOIA-0231-2019 sought copies of the DIA response to FOIA-0065-2010, which was a request in 2010 for documents pertaining to the AAWSAP. The DIA filled the request in part, which included providing correspondence conducted between the Agency and Bigelow Aerospace. A document was obtained in 2019 that verified the corporation was awarded an AAWSAP contract.

Those interested in the evolving Pentagon UFO story would be well served to differentiate between what has been verified from official sources and that which is speculated through much less credible and sensational channels. Reserving judgment on any number of issues should prove a wise option as the fact-checking process forges its painstaking path through a strangling jungle of manic hype.

UFO Disclosure and Transparency: Good for Thee, Not for Me

    Longtime ufology staple Hal Puthoff, when asked about recovered craft and bodies, reportedly stated he couldn't discuss them. The evasive remark was apparently given in response to a question posed at a recent conference sponsored by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, or SCU. 

Men and women with bold claims have been granted iconic status in the genre for decades. This is in spite of having never produced tangible, verifiable evidence to support their chronic insinuations of extraordinary circumstances.

Robert Bigelow

Anyone remotely familiar with UFO history is aware of the likes of Bob Lazar, George Knapp, Bob Bigelow and any number of his crew, and on and on, who have directly claimed access to paradigm-shifting evidence. For reasons that arguably only make sense to the gullible, UFO Disclosure advocates not only fail to seek verification of such alleged evidence, but support its obstruction. All the while, they manage to frame the participants of these UFO role playing games as heroic.

Why do those who claim to advocate UFO Disclosure and transparency not apply the same standards to members of the UFO genre as they do to Uncle Sam? As one individual observed, "Ufologists swoon at Puthoff’s supposed virtue for knowing more than he dare say, and condemn same behavior in government."

At this blog alone, we have explored circumstances in which Jacques Vallee, Garry Nolan, Diana Walsh Pasulka, Leslie Kean, and the list goes on, sought exemption from transparency while touting claims of significant, if not extraordinary, events. In most cases, the obstructions were implemented while alternately suggesting transparency should be applied to others, most certainly including federal agencies. 

In a recent discussion with UFO Classified host Erica Lukes, guest Mark O'Connell explained his interpretations of a presentation given by Luis Elizondo at a UAP conference a couple years ago (the referenced statements are about 68 minutes in). I suspect this was an SCU conference, as O'Connell mentioned it took place in Huntsville, where SCU holds some events.

"It was the most manipulative operation I have ever been witness to," O'Connell stated. 

Luis Elizondo

He described how Elizondo would enthusiastically tell the audience about exciting things to show them, and exciting discoveries being made, then do "a complete 180" when questions were posed, urging attendees to stay calm and patient. Now years later, people eagerly awaiting Elizondo to present verifiable information of exciting circumstances are still waiting.

As suggested, for whatever reasons, the UFO faithful show no interest in directing their demands for accountability and transparency at people who actually claim to know things and have evidence. In contrast and in real life, those working for government agencies who find themselves between an employment rock and an ethical hard place seek qualified legal counsel and whistleblower benefits as applicable. A recent example is Rebekah Jones, who obtained whistleblower status in her ongoing dispute with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over transparency pertaining to the accurate public reporting of COVID-19 cases. Note she did not seek assistance from George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell.

What's more, it has become increasingly apparent some in UFO circles believe ends justify means. With war-related analogies regularly tossed about, a portion of the UFO faithful seem encouraged, if not organized and directed, to oppose rationality and those who support it. That might be to a concerning extent, considering widespread credulousness and online extremism which led up to events of January 6.  

In the aftermath of the outing of a pro-UFO Twitter group chat in which tactics were discussed for use in what was described as a war for someone's followers, I noticed a Twitter user and UFO enthusiast declare the power of UFO Twitter. For those unaware, UFO Twitter, or those who tweet about UFOs, considers itself influential in guiding official policy on the handling of the UAP topic. They are often encouraged by higher profile activists to believe that is the case. The UFO enthusiast added in their tweet, "We too have been engaging in ops against the secret keepers."   

I chose to respond to the assertion, asking who is "we." I further inquired who the "secret keepers" are and what kinds of actions are being taken "against" them. I would indeed like to know more about who designs and directs these alleged "ops."   

After a brief exchange the individual suggested they would get back with me the next day. When they did not, I inquired again. They then "blocked" me, reducing my access to their tweets, and, in effect, the extent I might pursue the claims.

UFO Disclosure and transparency: Good for thee, not for me.