John Moss and Special Report 14 (1956)

From the UAP Encyclopedia, the open encyclopedia of UFO and UAP history · 🗓️ Event

Contents 8
John Moss and Special Report 14 (1956)
John E. Moss Federal Building Sacramento California
John E. Moss Federal Building Sacramento California Photo: Griffin5 Talk / Contributions · CC BY-SA 3.0 · via Wikimedia Commons
Date5 July 1956
TopicsBeings & bodies (topic), Secrecy & cover-up (topic), Government programs (topic)
PeopleJohn Moss
TestimonyShellenberger testimony, p. 58
Year1956 in UFO history
Timeline1956 on the UAP Timeline
Sources8

In 1956 Representative John E. Moss of California, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Government Information, asked the Air Force why the public could not easily obtain Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, the Air Force's largest statistical study of UFO reports, even though it was unclassified.[1][2]

Special Report 14

The main entrance to Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus. Self made photo.
The main entrance to Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus. Self made photo. Photo: Analogue Kid at English Wikipedia · CC BY 2.5 · via Wikimedia Commons

The report, a statistical analysis by the Battelle Memorial Institute of some 3,200 Blue Book cases, judged about 22 per cent of them "unknown" after review by four analysts. When the Air Force released a summary and press release in October 1955, it claimed the study showed UFOs did not exist and said that only 3 per cent of cases were unknown, a figure critics noted was well below the report's own result.[2][3]

The inquiry

John E. Moss, U.S. Representative from California
John E. Moss, U.S. Representative from California Photo: US Government Printing Office · Public domain · via Wikimedia Commons

Moss's subcommittee had received complaints that the full report, though unclassified, could be seen only by visiting the Pentagon. He wrote to Air Force Secretary Donald A. Quarles asking how many copies had been printed, how many requests had been received and what justified the limits on access. The Air Force's reply, drafted by its legislative liaison office and the Air Technical Intelligence Center, said that only 100 copies of the full report had been printed, at an estimated $10 to $15 each; that the Intelligence Center had received eight inquiries and the Defense Department's public information office 300 to 350, mostly from students; and that the public could use the summary or borrow a copy for reproduction where there was obvious need. It insisted that it had no intention of withholding the information.[1]

Moss and secrecy

Illustration of a government hearing
Illustration: a government hearing. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

Moss had been leading a broader campaign against excessive government secrecy since 1955. His subcommittee collected complaints about agencies withholding information and laid the groundwork for the Freedom of Information Act, which he championed and which became law in 1966. The UFO correspondence was a small part of that effort, but it shows the subject being raised in Congress in the 1950s.[4]

Aftermath

Illustration of official papers and files
Illustration: official papers and files. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

The full report became available on request and is now freely available online. The testimony suggests that the Air Force's reluctance to circulate its largest study fitted a wider strategy, recommended by the Robertson Panel, of reducing public interest in UFOs.[2][3]

People and topics

Illustration of an open book about flying saucers
Illustration: an open book about flying saucers. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

On the Timeline

Illustration of a jet meeting an unknown object
Illustration: a jet meeting an unknown object. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

See every 1956 event on the UAP Timeline →

References

Further reading

This page was last edited on 29 October 2026. Articles are written in our own words from the sources listed under References; disputed claims are attributed to the people who made them.

Discuss the article: missing sources, mistakes, or what should be added.

No discussion yet.

BrowseFeedArticlesTimelineOfficial filesMapTonight’s SkyStatsFavorites