Symposium on unidentified flying objects: hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, second session, July 29, 1968.

70
The
airmen
felt
obliged
to consider
the
possibility
that
their
six
attempted
intercepts
involved
more
than
one
unknown.
Hemphill
mentions
that,
in
the
first
attempted
intercept,
"the
target
put
on
a
tremendous
burst
of speed
and
dived
so
fast that
we
were
tenable to
stay
with
it."
After
this
head-on
intercept,
Hemphill
did
a
chandelle
back
to
his
original
6000
-ft
altitude
and
tried
a
stern
interception,
"but
the
aircraft
immediately
outdistanced
us.
The
third
target
was
spotted
visually
by
myself,"
Hemphill's
signed
statement
in the case
-file
continues.
"I
had
an
excellent silhouette
of the
target
thrown
against
a
very
reflective
under
-
cast
by
a
full
moon.
I
realized
at
this
time
that
it
did
not
look
like
any
type
aircraft
I
was
familiar with,
so
I
immediately
contacted
my
Ground
Control
Station
.
.
."
which
informed
him
there
were
no
other
known
aircraft
in
the
area.
Hemphill's
statement
adds
further
that,
"The
fourth
target
passed
directly
over
my
ship
from
stern
to
bow
at
a
speed
of
roughly
twice that of
my
aircraft,
200
mph.
I
caught
just
a
fleeting
glance
of
the
aircraft; just
enough
to
know
he
had
passed
on.
The
fifth
and
sixth targets
were
attempted
radar
interceptions,
but
their
high
rate
of speed
put
them
immediatelyout of
our
range."
(Note
the
non
-committal terminology that
treats
each
intercept
target
as
if
it
might have
been
a
separate
object.)
A
sketch
of
what
the
object
looked
like
when
seen
in
silhouette
against
the moonlit cloud
deck
is
contained
in
the
file.
It
was
estimated
to
be about the
size
of
a
fighter aircraft,
but
had
neither
discernible
wings
nor
tail
structures.
It
was
somewhat
bullet
-shaped, tapered
towards
the
rear,
but
with
a
square
-cut aft
end.
It
seemed
to
have
"a
dark
or
dull
finish".
Discussion.
Ground
radar
stations
never
detected
the
unknown
that
was
seen
visually
and
contacted
by
airborne radar.
The
report
indicates
that
this
may
have
been
due
to
effects
of
"ground
clutter",
though
the
F-61
was
seen
intermit-tently
on
the
ground
units.
The
airmen
stated
that
no
exhaust
flames
or
trail
were
seen
from
this
object
with
its
"stubby, clean
lines".
The
total
duration of the
six
attempted
intercepts
is
given
as
10
minutes.
We
deal here
with one of
many
cases
wherein radar
detection
of
an
unconventional
object
was
supported
by
visual observation.
That
this
is
carried
as
Unidentified
cannot
surprise
one;
what
is
surprising
is
that so
many
other
comparable
instances
are
on
record, yet
have
been
ignored
as
indicators
of
some
scientifically
intriguing
problem
demand-
ing
intensive
study.2.
Case
36.
Nowra,
Australia,
September, 1954
The
first
UFO
case to
command
general press
attention in
the
Australian
area
seems
to
have
been
a
combined radar
-visual
sighting
wherein the
pilot
of
a
Hawker
Seafury
from
Nowra
Naval
Air
Station
visually
observed
two unknown
objects
near
him
as he
flew
from
Canberra
to
Nowra
(Ref.
43).
Press
descriptions
revealed
only that the
pilot
said
"the
two
strange
aircraft
resembling
flying
saucers"
were
capable of speeds
much
beyond
his
Seafury
fighter.
He
saw
them
flying
nearby
and
contacted
Nowra
radar
to
ask
if
they
had him on
their
scope;
they informed
him
that they
had
three separate
returns,
at
which
juncture
he
described
the
unidentified objects.
Under
instructions
from
the
Nowra
radar
operator,
he
executed
certain
maneuvers
to identify
himself
on
the
scope.
This
confirmed the scope
-identity
of
his aircraft
vs.
the
unknowns.
As
he
executed the
test
maneuvers,
the
two unknowns moved
away
and
disappeared.
No
explana-
tion
of
this
incident
was
offered
by Naval
authorities after
it
was
widely reported
in Australian
and
New
Zealand papers about
three
months
after
it
occurred.
Discussion.—It
is
mildly
amusing
that the
press
accounts
indicated
that
"the
pilot,
fearing that
he might
be ragged
in the
wardroom on
his
return
if
he
abruptly reported
flying
saucers,
called
Nowra
by
radio
and
asked whether the
radar
screen
showed
his aircraft."
Only
after getting
word
of
three,
not one, radar
blips in his
locality
did
he
radio
the information
on
the
unknowns, whose
configuration
was
not
publicly released.
This
is
in
good accord with
my
own
direct
experience in interviewing Australian
UFO
witnesses in
1967; they are no more
willing
than Americans
to be
ridiculed
for seeing
something that
is
not supposed
to
exist.
3. Case. 37.
Capetown South
Africa,
May
23,
1953
In November
1953, the South African Air Force released
a
brief
announcementconcerning radar-tracking of six successive passes of one or more unknown
high-