Transcript

← Back to 1956 & 1957

Hank Weaver Radio Show

Understanding Audio Transcript

Recording structure

Hover your cursor over the sentence to see the timestamp.

[00:00] Program opening and introduction

luminous phenomenon, UFOs, flying saucers, whatever you may have, for the past couple

of years, in my studies I have done some work on movies, motion pictures, dealing with such

phenomenon. I have concluded that the study of such unidentified objects certainly is justifiable.

Certainly is a justifiable object for scientific pursuit. This evening I will share with some of the other members of the panel some of the results of my work and answer any questions about it.

Thank you very much, Bob. And now, Dr. Richard Barthol. I'm relatively a newcomer into the project of flying saucers. I'm a psychologist at UCLA, and I was asked, I guess, two weeks ago, why? Why it is that people are suddenly seeing flying saucers, and this is part of my area

of interest, why people see things and why people report things, and so I guess I'm invited here in case someone wants to talk about things that aren't there or things that are reported as being different from what they really are. Well, thank you, Doctor, and we'll be back to your views and the rest of the panel in a moment. As I say, our beat is from Main Street to Malibu. Tonight it's from Main Street to Malibu to Mars. Later on this evening, we're going to come back to Earth with some very attractive young ladies, some very attractive men's apparel. Right now, let's go back up a few thousand miles and take off like a big fat bird with Western Airlines, huh? Now back to our panel to discuss this business of flying objects, unidentified or otherwise flying saucers.

First, Al, you told us that you were a civilian press liaison officer for the Air Force in Washington dealing with UFO subjects.

[02:00] Hank Weaver radio interview begins

Can you tell us a little bit about that work in detail? Well, along about 1950, the subject became very much in the public mind.

The year is 50, 51. There were very many sightings reported, and a lot of the public became alarmed, and various

Air Force and other military officials throughout the world were being asked to voice their opinions,

and they... took advantage of the occasion to do so, and subsequently, in a case like this, you'll

get a lot of different opinions from a lot of different people. They all happened to wear the same uniform, the United States military uniform, and this became a problem in Washington. They wanted to have one person give the official viewpoint, and I was chosen to be the spokesman

for that job. Now, I got my information from the intelligence people. But during that era all the press queries came to my desk, and I got involved that way. Well, what about the radar sightings we've heard about? Well, Hank, the radar sightings and the photographic evidence that is that has been accumulated, to me, are the most important pieces of evidence. The fact that a person who is not trained to observe something in the sky makes a report to the Air Force describing a fantastic object of fantastic size. This doesn't mean anything to me. I know it doesn't mean anything to the Air Force. They're not concerned much with sightings like that. They are only interested in sightings that will give the scientists something to work with, such as a report of a radar sighting with photographic evidence of the radar scope during the sighting,

and preferably for more than one radar scope at the same time, and also any motion pictures that may have been made of an object in flight. These are considered the hard core of good sightings because you can't refute these as hallucinations or you can't get rid of them psychologically.

They exist, and they exist on either a piece of film or they've been picked up by radar. Well, how about the movie UFO? The motion picture that was produced in Hollywood, I worked on that motion picture with Clarence Green, the producer. And with Ed Ruppelt, who was head of Project Blue Book. And that picture is accurate from beginning to end. There is nothing in that picture that is not true, that we cannot stand behind as fact. What about your own opinions on UFOs? Well, that's something that I can stand behind, but I don't know how accurate it is. I believe they're interplanetary vehicles. I think they're probably reconnaissance vehicles. I don't think there's anybody in them, and I don't go along with these. I don't believe there's contact stories of people riding and flying saucers and things like that.

I don't believe that. What do you think of the most recent incident in Texas? Well, there were two or three different types of sightings there, and I haven't seen the complete report. The Air Force has all the facts on it. I assume that they will eventually come out with an explanation. However, I would like to see the actual report rather than the Air Force explanation of it. Well, now we come to the Air Force. Captain Damon Echols, Captain, I would like to, on your behalf, say that you are a spokesman for the Air Force, per se, and undoubtedly will not go into a matter of personal opinion too much. What is the standing of the Air Force on this whole subject? Well, Hank, since the flying saucers first became a fad, so to speak,

back in June of 1936, 1947 was actually one of the first modern-day sightings, the Air Force has investigated 5,700 sightings.

And out of that enormous number of sightings that the Air Force has completely investigated,

98% have been determined to have been identified as some,

by some manner or means, to be objects which were identifiable. Only 2% of the 5,700 were listed as unknowns or unidentifiable.

What's the most common offender? The most common offender, Hank, is the balloons. I don't think it's probably generally known that throughout the United States, each day of the year, there are at least, and sometimes more,

but at least 4,000 balloons. Each day of the year, there are at least 4,000 balloons released each day throughout the United States. And these vary in size from a four-foot weather balloon that someone may send up from a little county airport somewhere to a gigantic 200-foot balloon, which might inflate to an enormous size and has running lights on it, which at night present a very eerie sight. And actually, some of these balloons get up, right? Rather high and get caught in the jet streams and take on weird shapes and have been clocked at speeds between 200 and 300 miles an hour. And you can see that this might cause most anyone to think it was a real weird object.

Captain, how much security, actually, do you feel is involved? Well, I don't really know just exactly how you mean that, Hank. Well, I put it this way. If you mean the security of our country or whether you mean, uh, the classification of the... Classification, I mean. Uh, I don't, uh, think that there's, uh, too much security.

[08:00] Main discussion and reported experiences

We have, in fact, I have right here this, uh, Project, uh, Blue Book, which Al spoke of. And, uh, in here are some, uh, 4,000 reports, which, uh, anyone, uh, the public is at liberty to come and take a look at or is welcome to take a look at. And, uh, I don't believe there's any real intentional desire of the Air Force to cover up, uh, on the contrary, I'd say the desire is to find out as quickly as possible what the objects are and enlighten the public. At no time has the Air Force ever stated that there is no such thing as an unidentified flying object.

They admit the possibility, but they, uh, by the same token, uh, believe that most of them can be explained and have been explained. With, with logic, huh? Well, I personally, uh, I'm sort of a, I guess you'd call me an agnostic in this regard, I don't, I don't know exactly what I do believe in. I saw a weather balloon one time, a lot of guys thought it was some weird subject. Uh, the only thing that confuses me is one story that's never been explained, and that is the disappearance of an Air Force flyer who had made contact and had checked out with a control tower. Now, I've forgotten the exact locale. And he said he was going to try to approach, uh, this unidentified object. And there was silence from then on and no remains of the plane or anything else

that had been heard. That's the only thing that intrigues me. Maybe I like the cliff-hanging mystery-type, type serials. Uh, Hank, as I, uh, prefaced my remarks when I came on the program, I'm not an authority on the subject. I recall the incident of which you speak. I happened to be overseas at the time, which is a pretty good out, and so I will just pass it. Well, you take advantage of it. Captain, thank you. We're going to come back to our panel in just a moment. But right now, I'd like to have you meet a gentleman who visited with us, uh, a few nights ago. Oh, his name is, uh, Jim Cavanaugh. And Jim represents the Advanced, uh, Muffler People. And, Jim, I'd like to have you sort of repeat the story you gave us earlier, visiting with us again. Thank you very much, Hank.

Pleasure. Now we get back to our little discussion on unidentified flying objects, uh, more commonly referred to in the press as flying saucers. I can't remember just, uh, how come they came up with that form of identification in the first place anyway. Next, we will go back to Mr. Robert Baker and his views. Uh, Hank, I'd like to start by saying thank you. Thank you. Uh, Hank, I'm, find myself in essential agreement with, uh, both Al and Captain Echols.

Uh, I believe that most of the reports probably are, uh, the results of either a natural object

that someone has seen, uh, possibly imagination, uh, uh, perhaps as Dr. Bartoff will, uh, suggest

later, uh, some form of hypnosis or psychology. However, I think there remains a resistance. Uh, I would suggest that if we have, uh, an individual, uh, group of phenomenon that can't be so simple explained, uh, a group of, uh, objects that, uh, need some type of scientific investigation.

After all, uh, the history of science is full of, uh, the beginnings of the investigation of various phenomenon and always at the start why, uh, those that wish to give it some serious thought are, uh, either laughed out or frowned upon.

Uh, I don't know. I don't think there is a reason for that. I don't think there is a reason for that. Uh, I don't think there is a reason for that. There is a reason for that. Um, I don't think there is a reason for that. always the quacks, always the group of scientists that are very conservative in their views.

This has been the case since the earliest days in astronomy. I think even in the recent times in rocketry and guided missile work and space travel, the same idea.

However, I feel that there are certain areas here that one can investigate this phenomenon.

It has been said that if you can reduce something to numbers, why then it is amenable to scientific investigation and analysis.

And certainly if one has photographs, radar observations, these things that can be reduced to numbers, that can be analyzed,

why then you really have something concrete to work with. I might say that to my knowledge there exist to date two. Rather concrete examples of this phenomenon, I have had the privilege of analyzing these two examples.

May I ask in what capacity? Well, I was a member of the private industry. I don't know whether I should mention the firm or not, so I will refrain from doing that. There were two films that came into my possession and my capacity in the research department of this particular company.

And I was given the task of investigating them and analyzing them in the same way that we have been doing with missile firings and other such information.

They came to us in the form of color films or color film clips. The film depicted, one film depicted two objects moving across the path in front of the camera.

The other film depicted several objects. And it was my job to analyze them to the best of my ability. To try and draw some conclusions from them. I might show you a sample page from the group, if the camera can pick that up.

This report was made available to the Air Force and to other interested people. It contained, I believe, a rather extensive exposé and investigation of these two particular films.

And I feel that when you do get something as concrete as a film of this nature, that you should do justice to the information and investigate it in as thoroughgoing and dispassionate way as you can.

I have a feeling, I don't wish to put Captain Eccles on the spot here, but I have a feeling that...

I don't think you're going to, Frank. I have a feeling that... I have a feeling that certain information is, so to speak, kept back for some time,

a year perhaps, until the officials in the Air Force think about it, perhaps keep it in their hats for a while, and then it slowly leaks out. I personally feel that as soon as a movie, as soon as some reputable piece of evidence comes forth,

either from an observer in the field, from some pilot, it should be immediately given to capable technical people for analysis

and then presented to the public with this background of capable technical analysis.

[15:00] Follow-up questions and closing segment

I really don't feel there's anything too dangerous in the flying saucer phenomenon.

I think it is a phenomenon of nature, just as meteorites, meteors, and things of this nature are a phenomenon of nature.

For a while... There was a good deal of disbelief that meteorites were of extraterrestrial nature. People just would not believe it. And it literally had to wait until the day when one of them fell at the foot of a rather renowned scientist

until they did come to the conclusion that, yes, there was something here. There were rocks from space. Well, in short, you believe to a certain degree the existence of some man-made satellites or something from an outer world. Well, I don't think we have enough information to base a hypothesis on, but I think, in short, I believe there's enough there to warrant an investigation. Dr. Richard Barthol of UCLA, how do you look upon this entire subject? Well, I agree with everything that everybody has said so far, except Mr. Baker, and the only thing I quarrel with him about is the way he pronounces my name. Oh. Excuse me. Yes, I thoroughly agree that there is some evidence that something should happen. That something should be investigated. I don't believe that there has been enough evidence

so that anyone can say with assurance that there are flying saucers or visitors from space or from other countries or even that our own Air Force is sending objects around here. But on the other hand, there isn't any evidence that this is not so. And it seems to me that the only sensible thing to do is to pursue the investigation diligently, entertaining any hypotheses. That seems warranted. I think it would be silly, stupid to say for sure that there are no flying saucers.

A lot of the sightings that have turned up, of course, can be explained on psychological principles. I wouldn't go so far as to say that any of them could be called hypnosis. But certainly a good portion of them are honestly mistaken reports. As I think the Air Force data has shown.

This doesn't mean that the people who are reporting these things are peculiar in any way whatsoever. Since we all interpret what we see in a way that makes sense to us. And right now the way that makes sense to many people is to report these things that are flying up in the sky as flying saucers. From a psychological standpoint, I believe you made the statement, Doctor, that people see what they believe they want to see sometimes. Yes, that's two statements you have in one. People see what they want to see. That's one thing that happens. And people also see what they expect to see. I think that a few of the sightings might be accounted for on the basis of people seeing what they want to see. They would like to see flying saucers. I think this would be mighty entertaining to see a flying saucer.

Some of the others are that people see what they expect to see. If you're looking up in the sky and you see an ambiguous, that is, a thing you're not sure of, you have to interpret it in some way. The way you might interpret it is that of a flying saucer. Well, do you think that the introduction of the two Russian satellites, Sputnik 1 and 2, one unoccupied, one occupied, would play upon public imagination? Oh, I think tremendously. It would be a relief from the strain that has been imposed upon us to have something like a flying saucer appear, so this would tend to reduce anxiety. And then, of course, I think the most important thing is that most of us have been looking up in the sky. And we're seeing all of these wonderful things that have been up there all the time

that not many people have observed them before. Well, Doctor, I'd like to thank you. I'd like to thank Al Chopp, Captain Damon Echols, Mr. Robert Baker, and Dr. Richard Barthol. Is that the correct pronunciation? That's the correct pronunciation. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. And we appreciate you taking the time at this late hour. Of course, we still don't know the answer, but we can wait. Thank you again. And now, a word for International Latex.