grew in size until it was the most thoroughly investigated sighting of that time, at least the file was the thickest.
About a year later the Air Force released its official report on the incident. To use a trite term, it was a masterpiece in the art of “weasel wording.” It said that the UFO might have been Venus or it could have been a balloon. Maybe two balloons. It probably was Venus except that this is doubtful because Venus was too dim to be seen in the afternoon. This jolted writers who had been following the UFO story. Only a few weeks before, The Saturday Evening Post had published a two-part story entitled “What You Can Believe about Flying Saucers.” The story had official sanction and had quoted the Venus theory as a positive solution. To clear up the situation, several writers were allowed to interview a a major in the Pentagon, who was the Air Force’s Pentagon “expert” on UFO’s. The major was asked directly about the conclusion of the Mantell Incident, and he flatly stated that it was Venus. The writers pointed out the official Air Force analysis. The major’s answer was, “They checked again and it was Venus.” He didn’t know who “they” were, where they had checked, or what they had checked, but it was Venus. The writers then asked, “If there was a later report they had made why wasn’t it used as a conclusion?” “Was it available?” The answer to the last question was “No,” and the lid snapped back down. This interview gave the definite impression that the Air Force was unsuccessfully trying to cover up some very important information, using Venus as a front. Nothing excites a newspaper or magazine writer more than to think he has stumbled onto a big story and that someone is trying to cover it up. Many writers thought this after the interview with the major, and many still think it. You can’t really blame them, either.
In early 1952 I got a telephone call on ATICs direct line to the Pentagon. It was a colonel in the Director of Intelligence’s office. The Office of Public Information had been getting a number of queries about all of the confusion over the Mantell Incident. What was the answer?
I dug out the file. In 1949 all of the original material on the incident had been microfilmed, but something had been spilled on the film. Many sections were so badly faded they were illegible. As I had to do with many of the older sightings that were now
