To make the point in an even more dramatic fashion, Yale Scientific Magazine in April 1963 reported, "Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."
According to the analysis by Leon Davidson, the chi-square test has shown, as even the Battelle researchers had to admit, that "There was very little probability that the Unknowns were the same as the Knowns. But they refused to admit that this meant that 'saucers' could be a real type of novel object." What Davidson had discovered was that the Battelle scientists had misrepresented their data to reach the conclusion the Air Force desired them to reach.
Following that same notion, Hynek wrote about the conclusions in Special Report #14, "[The report] completely disregards the results of these [chi-square] tests most brazenly, as if they did not exist."
And Maccabee reported that the data indicated that the "best qualified observers make the best reports and are most likely to be reporting true UNKNOWNS, while the poorest observers make the poorest reports (most INSUF. INFO. [insufficient data]) and are the least likely to be reporting true UNKNOWNS."
This finding alone suggested there was something to the UFO phenomena, but it was unacceptable to the Project Stork scientists. Instead they "could only guess" that the "psychological make-up" of witnesses in the unknown cases, plus a single unrecognized source, such as a balloon, airplane or whatever, was responsible for many of the sightings, had skewed the results "so as to create an artificial distinction between knowns and unknowns."
Of course, it is necessary to point out that in the summary, the Battelle analysts suggested there was no significant difference between the witnesses who reported objects that were later identified and those who reported objects that remained unidentified. Then, later, when it suited their purposes, they suggested there was a difference. In other words, they were contradicting their own findings when it suited their purpose. This is not good science.
What we see as we read Special Report #14 is the history of the belief structures of those writing the reports. In the very beginning, as Ruppelt proposed the idea, Project Grudge, and later Blue Book, was conducting unbiased investigations into the phenomenon. They wanted answers, but they wanted answers that were accurate. Solving a case just to put a label on it had no appeal to Ruppelt and his staff.
In the first of the status reports, the information supplied discusses what is going to happen in the near future. These reports were about what was happening with the UFO investigations. The third report, for example, dated July 7, 1952, mentioned that Hynek had been hired as an astronomical consultant and that he would interview other astronomers regarding their opinions about UFOs and UFO reports.
The sixth report, dated October 10, 1952, again reports on the status of the Battelle investigation. But, there is a comment that should be singled out. It mentions the analysis of a 35 mm spectroscopic film and a section of gun-camera spectrographic film. Maccabee in his report noted, "Apparently these films were supplied to Battelle without enough data on how the films were obtained for the analysts to be able to make any positive conclusions."
Or maybe, these films were too explosive for the results to be reviewed in documents that were classified, at their highest, as secret. Hynek wrote that he believed the involvement of Battelle was a "top secret" but the reports don't reflect this.
But that is a digression. The point is that someone had provided the technical equipment to fighter units to allow for gun-camera spectroscopic filming of UFOs, but in all cases files I have examined, and in all the work done by so many others, I know of no one who has ever located those films. Spectroscopic analysis of the UFOs could provide some interesting clues about the propulsion systems used by them, to the sources of the light that seem to surround them and other technical aspects of those sightings.
It would also seem that the use of spectroscopic film implies planning by someone. It would suggest a controlled experiment which, if successful, would go a long way to answering the questions about the nature of the UFOs. We can assume, that since the data have not been released, that they provided evidence of the extraterrestrial nature of the flying saucers. Otherwise, as we have seen, we would have possession of that data.
In arguing about the evidence held by the military, or the government, concerning UFOs, researchers have often claimed secret documents and studies that have not seen the light of day. This seems to be corroboration of that claim because gun-camera footage that can provide for a spectroscopic analysis has not been released.
Returning to the other aspects of the Battelle study, we learn that the reports from them ended with number seven. In December 1952, and in January and February 1953, there were single page letters that updated the ongoing analysis. These were composed by Reid, the project supervisor.
But what is interesting is the timing. If we go back to the history of the UFO project, we see that the pendulum has swung the other way, that is, away from an extraterrestrial hypothesis. UFO sightings were again in the realm of science fiction. It was at this time, January 1953, that Blue Book was beginning to lose its special status. The staff, which had been so busy in the summer and fall of 1952, was reduced, and by the spring of 1953 it was a single officer and a single enlisted man. At one point that spring, there were no officers, and an airman first class, a low-ranking man, had control of Project Blue Book.
And, it was at this time that the investigative responsibility was taken away from Blue Book and passed to the 4602d Air Intelligence Service Squadron. Although there would still be some investigations carried out by Blue Book personnel, the real investigation rested with the 4602d. That is evidenced by the implementation of Air Force Regulation 200-2, which placed the investigative responsibility directly on the shoulders of the 4602d.
An examination of the documentation available about the 4602d's involvement suggests that they saw the UFO investigations as an opportunity to practice their interrogation techniques. They were also hostile to the addition of the mission to investigate UFOs. In Volume II of the Unit History, there is a "UFOB Summary" in which the author wrote, "First recorded instances of genuine UFOs occurred in 1948 [sic] with the appearance of the 'Flying Saucers' in difference parts of the United States. Rapid diffusion to all parts of the world, including the Soviet Union and its satellites… Birth of a new literary genre 'Science Fiction' which in most cases is entirely fictitious and unscientific [This whole point is irrelevant and wrong. Science fiction had existed for decades and had been introduced to Americans in the 1920s]… Emotional stimulus of speculation on the fantastic… General Public not qualified to evaluate material propounded in science fiction. Absurd and fantastic theories given credence solely on the basis of ignorance… UFOB reports even though patently ridiculous receive undue attention through latent fear, etc."
This then, was the attitude of the people doing the investigations of UFOs after the various regulations, both those written by the Air Defense Command and by the Air Force including AFR 200-2 went into effect. By the time Blue Book Special Report #14 was publicly available, those inside the military establishment had the attitude of those at the 4602d. Is it little wonder that the conclusions drawn in the report are that UFOs don't exist, there is no evidence they exist, and that it is impossible to prove they don't exist? In other words, the conclusions were not based on the data presented, but on the beliefs and attitudes being expressed by those who were now controlling the purse, and the course, of the investigation.