WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505

                                             June 24, [BLANK]



Executive Briefing {Memo}

Yesterday R2 requested briefing on Project "A".  In particular,
he wanted update info from [BLANK].  MJ3 advised that that
info was not available to R2.  Apparently, White House requested
info because of [         BLANK            ].  Can't seem
to make those fools realize [BLANK] info is not available for
any dissemination, per EO 01156, regardless of who requests
info.  Contact T-2P and see if he can assume custody of the

Don't allow AF to evaluate IDENT info.  They may open up a
little too much.  KEND-3 can assist to some extent.


                        TOP SECRET

                                                      HANDLE ON STRICT
                                                      NEED TO KNOW BASIS

TO: All interested parties

FROM: Allen Benz
      Foundation for UFO Research
      Box 182
      Tucson, AZ  85702-0182


Recently we received a letter from Bill English which states
in part:
        It's come to my attention that I've been the subject
      of much speculation on the Paranet out of Phoenix, and
      that several people have called my father at his
      office in Phoenix. All trying to find out if I am
        indeed his son and/or if I'm alive...[please] put
        out a message on the net telling everyone that I'm
        alive and well and that I request that they not
        bother my father anymore. I think he's about to
        blow a gasket.

Anyone wishing to contact Bill English may do so by contacting us at the
mailing address.

                           QUESTIONS ON AQUARIUS

                         by Christian P. Lambright

      It has been said that there are three kinds of people, those who
make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who won-
der...what happened...? It seems that nothing more true could be said of
the types of people involved in the arena of UFO interest. The recent
con-troversy concerning the alleged project entitled "AQUARIUS" and the
con-trol group labeled "MJ-12" seems a prime example of the confusion
that re-sults from lack of communication between interested parties. Is
there a project AQUARIUS which deals with UFOs? Who first discovered
that such a project existed? If the documentation supporting the
existence of an "MJ-12" group is valid, as some contend, then why does
it appear full of dis-crepancies? These are questions that need to be
addressed before any at-tempt can be made to judge the validity of the

      As any good detective can tell, motivation is a helpful key in
solv-ing any crime or mystery. Who would stand to gain by the situation
hand? Perhaps a little of this line of reasoning would help in solving
the current mystery of AQUARIUS/MJ-12. The revelation of a UFO-related
project by the name of AQUARIUS first appeared on the scene in what has
commonly been referred to as the "NASA-telex" [AQUARIUS.DOC]. This is
the allegedly genuine document which describes several pieces of
photographic film relat-ing to incidents at Kirtland AFB and the case of
Paul Bennewitz. As most knowledgeable people are aware, this document
relates quite a bit of inter-esting information pertaining to official
interest in UFOs as well as men-tioning the existence of project
AQUARIUS and something called "MJ-12".  However, several key areas in
this document were deleted by either the original source or by the
recipient. It is interesting to note that there is a retyped version of
this document which has circulated with the dele-tions filled-in, but
with no explanation as to who retyped it or how the previously deleted
areas were uncovered.

      Reportedly Peter Gersten was shown this document in 1983 and so it
would seem that it has been around for several years. But if Gersten was
the original recipient he has not revealed where he obtained it or from
whom. This document would appear to be closely tied to the events at
Kirt-land AFB in 1980 inasmuch as it mentions Bennewitz and the Air
Force inter-est in UFO sightings over military bases. Could the release
of this docu-ment be related to the release of the initial document(s)
concerning the events at Kirtland? [KIRTLND1.DOC, KIRTLND2.DOC] William
Moore has stated that he was first given the initial Kirtland documents
in Washington DC in early 1982 by an unnamed source. And there have been
several rumors circu-lated concerning heated arguments between Moore and
Gersten over the means by which Gersten obtained these documents. Rumors
aside, if Moore received his documents over one year _after_ the
incidents occurred then whoever gave him these copies must have had
access to them either from AFOSI files in Washington or from the
original sender at Kirtland. There are indica-tions that William Moore
received his copies from Richard Doty, the AFOSI Special Agent at
Kirtland AFB. Other sources have also reported that Doty was involved in
an effort to get information of this nature out to certain individuals
for purposes unknown. And so it seems possible that Doty was responsible
for the Kirtland documents and perhaps the "NASA-telex" being released
as he would have been in a position to have access to such infor-mation.
Regardless, it would fall to serious UFO researchers to attempt to
verify if the documents conveyed valid information, or disinformation.

      As interest began to focus on AQUARIUS and "MJ-12" several
different FOIA requests were filed with various government agencies to
try to garn-ish information on these subjects, but as recently as 1986
most of the leading figures in Ufology were convinced that the document
was a forgery and that Project AQUARIUS was nonexistent. In 1985 I had
filed several different requests with government agencies requesting
information on
three projects: Sigma, Snowbird and Aquarius; as well as any information
pertaining to MJ-12 or Majestic-12. I specifically did not mention any
connection or interest dealing with UFOs in these requests. With the
excep-tion of the National Security Agency every response I received was
a de-nial of any knowledge of any of these subjects or titles. While
they sta-ted that Sigma and Snowbird were "not projects of this agency"
and that they had no knowledge of MJ-12, they estimated that search fees
for all information on Project AQUARIUS would be $15,000! It would
appear that
this is a rather expansive project. After several subsequent requests
for clarification and to simply send the initial document which
initiated the project the NSA stated that the project did not deal with
"UFOs" and that as I would not be paying the fees they were concluding
action on my re-quests. Subsequent appeals only clarified that Project
AQUARIUS was classified Top Secret and that release of any portion of it
could pose "grave danger to the national security." [AQUANSA.DOC]

      Several individuals have considered the statement by the NSA that
AQUARIUS does not deal with UFOs to be patently honest, and perhaps this
is the truth. However I believe that to have expected the NSA to "roll-
over" and openly reveal otherwise would be naive to say the least. It
seems paradoxical that some "researchers" both expect these agencies to
be deceptive but will readily accept some statements as totally
accurate. I believe that there are sufficient reasons to suspect that
the NSA project may actually be the project which is indicated in the
"NASA-telex" which originally mentioned it and MJ-12.

      In the process of trying to verify the above document I had ad-
dressed a series of letters to what was designated the 7602 Air Intel-
ligence Group (7602 AINTELG), as of 1983 known as the Air Force Special
Activities Center. A Branch of the Air Force Intelligence Service, the
7602 AINTELG deals with human resource intelligence, much the same as
the 4602 AINTELG which is known to have aided Edward Ruppelt in his
investi-gations several years ago. This may or may not be coincidence
and could be an interesting avenue for further research. Nevertheless,
in the process
of trying to get information on this group I had been receiving somewhat
evasive response letters from AFIS. In a conversation with an Air Force
source in which I had referred to my problems in obtaining information
on this group I was informed that perhaps this is due to the fact that
"they are a branch of the NSA!" This was at the time my first indication
that there may be some NSA involvement, and was prior to my letters to
NSA it-self. Within a few months I was to learn another interesting fact
pointing to the NSA.

      With the aid of well-known research Thomas Adams I was notified of
a person who reportedly had heard a very interesting statement
the initial AQUARIUS/MJ-12 document. After speaking with this gentleman
personally I was firmly convinced that the information he was relating
was accurate as it had been told to him. He related that he had been
told per-sonally that this document had been changed in two ways, and
that he had been told this by the individual who had changed it.
Although both changes were not revealed, he had been told that the
reference in the document to "NASA" had originally been "NSA"! And who
was the person doing the telling ...none other than William Moore. In a
brief conversation with Moore after this in which I asked him if he had
any knowledge of this he simply stated "No comment."

      The recent issue of JUST CAUSE also contains the statement by
Larry Fawcett and Barry Greenwood that they have been told that this
document is actually a retyped version. This fact was reportedly
revealed in 1983 to Peter Gersten by an Air Force officer and was either
forgotten or over-looked until just recently. However, the Air Force
source who is cited is said to be none other than Richard Doty himself.

      In light of the fact that it has recently become common knowledge
that Mr. Moore does (for his own reasons) delete documents which he ob-
tains, and that he is rather aggressive in his research, I believe that
Mr. Moore did in fact retype or have this document retyped. But does
this negate the value of the document, or indicate that it is a hoax?
Perhaps this explains why no one can verify if the document is genuine,
because technically it _is_ a forgery. It would appear that it is up to
Mr. Moore to reveal a clean, accurate version and to finally reveal the
facts behind its acquisition.

      According to film producer and director Linda Moulton Howe, she
has had independent confirmation of MJ-12 and reportedly was shown a set
of documents containing much of the same, if not identical, information.
How-ever, the actual name of the group in question was not "Majestic"
but an-other similar sounding word containing the letters M and J. Could
it be that the term "Majestic" was a substitution in a clever attempt to
with-hold a key bit of information which only someone with true inside
inform-ation would be able to identify?

      If there is reason to question the accuracy of the information
pre-sented in the original AQUARIUS/MJ-12 document as well as the
information in the recent documents pertaining to MJ-12, does this
logically imply
that the 1980 Kirtland/Bennewitz events should be considered
questionable?  Any single-witness UFO sighting has always been somewhat
this is exactly why we look for multiple witnesses and any other
support-ing evidence. If Richard Doty, or Paul Bennewitz were alone in
reporting these incidents then the Kirtland events would never have
become as major an issue as they have. However there were numerous
individuals involved
not only in the events precipitating the documents but in the
preparation of the documents themselves. A brief summary of the
incidents is as fol-lows:

      Early 1980, Paul Bennewitz becomes involved in observing and
      filming objects which he has sighted on the ground and in the air
      near Kirt-land AFB and the Manzano range. Reportedly his wife was
      also present to witness some of the first landings he witnessed
      and filmed in the Coyote Canyon area. Subsequently he contacts
      Earnest Edwards of the Kirtland Security Police who, over the
      period of the next few
      months, becomes concerned and requests the guards on the Manzano
      Weapons Storage Area report to him any sightings of unusual aerial
      lights. At the beginning of August 1980 three guards report
      sighting an aerial light which descends on the Sandia Military
      Reservation.  This is the first sighting described in the
      complaint form signed by Richard Doty. Edwards reports the
      sighting to Doty unaware that Doty has already heard from Russ
      Curtis (Sandia Security Chief) that a Sandia Security guard
      sighted a disc-shaped object near a structure just minutes after
      the sighting by the three Manzano guards. Doty includes these
      reports and several others in his Complaint Form and forwards the
      report to AFOSI Headquarters in Washington.

From this point on many other persons became involved. Bennewitz was
called down to a meeting at Kirtland AFB at which several major Air
Force officers and Sandia personnel were present, including a Brigadier
General.  Earnest Edwards has confirmed that the three guards under his
command re-ported what was described, and that the meeting took place.
Bennewitz has confirmed that Doty and Jerry Miller came to his home to
view his mater-ials and there is a document signed by Thomas A. Cseh,
Commander of the Base Investigative Detachment, to confirm this. Finally
there is the com-plete set of documents which were released by AFOSI
Headquarters under cover of the Department of the Air Force relating to
the described events.

      There seem to be only two possibilities to consider. One: that
this is one of the most profound deceptions that has been undertaken
with the sanction of the USAF, involving a civilian, for purposes which
can only be imagined. The other: that the events happened as described
and that the intervening years, subsequent developments, and misguided
have only clouded the facts. Perhaps there was also some effort made on
an official level to defuse the sensitive nature of the events.

      Would Richard Doty have perpetrated a hoax, involved other
officers in his deception, sent the hoax on to AFOSI Headquarters, and
then spread certain information to civilian UFO researchers? For what
purpose? And would he still be in the Air Force if he was discovered,
knowing the
public relations catastrophe that could result from AFOSI in Washington
releasing the subsequent documents? If seems inconceivable that the Base
Investigative Detachment, and the Department of the Air Force, would not
have quickly and easily discovered the hoax and subsequently labeled the
entire matter as such, knowing their previous predilection to do just

      A few simple telephone calls have served to clarify much of the
truth of the initial incidents. We must avoid the temptation at times to
"shoot first and ask questions later" which can result in spreading mis-
information ourselves. It is advisable to use tact in approaching wit-
nesses as we have no God-given right to call up strangers and demand
that they answer questions, particularly when sensitive matters may be
in-volved. Is it any surprise that some of these people may not want to
be bothered by every person who plies them with questions?

      A very bizarre but intriguing letter was sent to APRO in either
late 1980 or early 1981 and is commonly referred to by the name of the
initial subject of the letter, a Mr. Craig Weitzel. This letter refers
to a se-quence of events which occurred in the mid-1980's at both
Kirtland AFB and in an area near Pecos, NM and also makes several
statements to the effect that there is a UFO-investigation detachment
stationed at or near Kirt-land. The writer also goes on to mention among
other things that there is at least one "object" stored in the Manzano
storage area. That the letter was at least legitimately received at APRO
can be ascertained by the vehe-ment letter which Jim Lorenzen mailed out
rebuking the gentleman who re-leased this letter without official
permission from APRO. However, can we determine if this letter is a
total hoax or is there even a grain of truth to be found in the
information it conveys? In a conversation I had with Craig Weitzel he
claimed to know nothing of the details related in the letter, and denied
that he took any photographs. Strangely enough, how-ever, he _did_ state
that he and the other did see an unusual silvery object hovering high in
the sky which left the area, to use his words, "exponentially"! He had
been training in mountain rescue operations and he and the others had
spelled out S-O-S on the mountain side using parachutes and were waiting
for the rescue helicopters to spot them. While looking
for these helicopters they notices the silvery "UFO". If this is all
that occurred what could be the reason to fabricate such a letter and
yet give the name and address of a witness who was sure to refute the
claims? Was
it just a bizarre practical joke? The author of the anonymous letter
claims that after Weitzel spoke with AFOSI agent Dody (sic) he did not
want to have anything more to do with the matter and subsequently the
Dody character denied that there had been any photographs. Was this a
circum-stance that could have been expected based on previous experience
with Air Force handling of such matters? Many government and military
witnesses often refuse to talk about their experiences to strangers
either because
of official pressure or simply for the sake of their own privacy.
Motiva-tion again must be considered in efforts to find the complete

      In early October 1987 I had a strange conversation with an indivi-
dual who is unknown to me except by first name and who initially knew
absolutely nothing about my interest in UFOs. During a telephone
conversa-tion which took place totally by chance, the subject of nuclear
weapons came up as this person indicated some knowledge of this
weaponry, being at the time a member of the Air Force. I jokingly asked
to know everything there was to know about Kirtland AFB, but not due to
my interest in nuc-lear weapons per se but because of something else I
thought may be stored at Manzano that "isn't nuclear weapons." After a
momentary chuckle this individual said, "yes...UFOs!" As astounded as I
was I asked for a little clarification, and after relating my interest,
I was told that there are two "objects" stored in the Manzano area from
what this person had heard during conversations by Air Force personnel
in Germany. There had been
some discussion about something which was related to a UFO incident
widely reported in German newspapers in 1981 being similar to something
which "they" had "over here."  Because of the circumstances under which
this conversation occurred and the fact that I had in no way even
alluded to
the subject I believe that this may offer some support to some of the
statements made in the anonymous "Weitzel" letter.

      A final note of interest has come up in the newly released book on
the "flying boomerang" objects reported in recent years in and around
New York state [NIGHT SIEGE, Ballantine 1987]. In the process of
investigating these incidents Hynek and Imbrogno were contacted by an
individual who claimed to work for the NSA. They apparently verified
this to their own satisfaction, and while this person professed that his
interest was only personal, they were struck by the inordinate amount of
interest this per-son showed in their investigations and any evidence
they uncovered. There are even indications that their telephones may
have been tapped. While it is unknown if this man's interest went
further than personal curiosity, it is clear that the investigators felt
there was something unusual about it.  Nevertheless, here is yet another
instance in which the National Security Agency seems to have crept into
the picture.

      Do the facts as outlined here cast reasonable suspicion on the NSA
and its part in official interest in unidentified flying objects? I be-
lieve that they do and that there is justifiable cause to suspect that
the project AQUARIUS which relates (at least in some way) to UFOs is
probably an NSA, or NSA related project. It also still seems that in
spite of the arguments and confusion concerning documents, the
designation "MJ-12" must be considered if not a certainty, than at least
potentially valid. Those who have taken the time to contact witnesses
and obtain their statements and help, have the best chance to make up
their minds for themselves, re-gardless of the confusion concerning
altered documents which seems to be precipitating furiously. We do not
want to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water simply because
the facts seem confusing. Perhaps even the confusion is being directed
by someone somewhere. We should keep our sights fixed firmly on the
major issues and the facts we _can_ prove in
our efforts to uncover the truth.


Thanks to all those sources both named and unnamed who have contributed
to the facts outlined here.