John Moss and Special Report 14 (1956)

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

Contents 9
John Moss and Special Report 14 (1956)
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
InquirerRep. John E. Moss (D-Calif.), chairman, House Government Information Subcommittee
AddresseeDonald A. Quarles, Secretary of the Air Force
Letter17 June 1956; reply drafted by the Office of Legislative Liaison and the Air Technical Intelligence Center, sent early July 1956
SubjectPublic access to Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, the Battelle statistical study of about 3,200 cases
Air Force answer100 copies printed; $10–15 a copy too costly for wide release; "no intention of withholding"
Requests8 to ATIC, 300–350 to DoD public information, 8–10 Pentagon visits
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 June 1956 Representative John E. Moss of California, chairman of the House Government Information Subcommittee, asked the Air Force why the public could not easily get Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14. The report was the Air Force's largest statistical study of UFO reports, and it was unclassified.[1][8] The Air Force replied that it had printed only 100 copies, because wider printing would cost too much, and that it had "no intention of withholding this information from the public".[1][8] The exchange is a small episode in Moss's long campaign against government secrecy, which led to the Freedom of Information Act of 1966.[4][6]

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

In late 1951 Captain Edward Ruppelt, head of Project Blue Book, asked the Battelle Memorial Institute of Columbus, Ohio, to make the Air Force's UFO study more scientific.[2] Battelle devised a standard reporting form and, from March 1952, coded about 30 characteristics of each report onto IBM punched cards.[2] Its statistical analysis of some 3,200 cases was completed in 1954 and issued as Special Report No. 14, dated 5 May 1955.[2][5] Its main findings:[2][5]

  • Unknowns. Four analysts classified each case, and a case was "unknown" only if all four agreed. About 22 per cent were unknown, about 69 per cent known (38 per cent conclusively and 31 per cent "doubtfully"), and about 9 per cent had insufficient information.
  • Quality. The better the report, the more likely it was to be unknown: 35 per cent of "excellent" cases against 18 per cent of the poorest.
  • The conclusion. Despite this, the summary declared it "highly improbable" that any reports represented technology beyond present-day knowledge.

When the Air Force publicized the study in October 1955, it claimed the report showed that UFOs did not exist. It gave only 3 per cent as unknown rather than the report's 22 per cent. Critics noted that the report actually found the unknowns statistically distinct from the knowns.[2][5]

Moss's letter

Moss wrote to Air Force Secretary Donald A. Quarles on 17 June 1956, on the subcommittee's 84th Congress letterhead.[8] He made these points:[1][8]

  • The complaint. The "full report", issued in October 1955, was not classified. Yet people could see it only "at considerable expense of time and money", since they had to visit the Pentagon to read it.
  • His questions. How many copies were printed, and to whom were they sent? How many requests had been received, and what had the Air Force done to meet them, since his information was that requests far outnumbered copies?
  • The law. If information was being withheld, for what reason, and under what statute or regulation?

The Air Force reply

Official Photo of Donald A. Quarles, 4th Secretary of the Air Force
Official Photo of Donald A. Quarles, 4th Secretary of the Air Force Photo: United States Air Force · Public domain · via Wikimedia Commons

The Office of Legislative Liaison passed the letter to the Director of Intelligence. The Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) drafted the material for Quarles's reply, which was prepared in late June and went out in early July 1956.[8] It made these points:[1][8]

  • Copies. ATIC had printed 100 copies of the report, which ran to over 300 pages, and sent them through normal Air Force distribution. That included the Defense Department's public information office, which passed copies to its East and West Coast offices.
  • Requests. ATIC had received eight inquiries: two asked for copies and six asked where to see the report. The public information office had received 300 to 350 requests, mostly from elementary, high school and college students, and "very few" from scientists. Between eight and ten people had visited the Pentagon to read it.
  • Cost. Printing copies for public libraries and colleges would cost $10 to $15 each, which was "prohibitive". Instead the Air Force offered, in any quantity, a summary of its UFO program and a Defense Department press release.
  • Loans. In "rare cases of obvious need" ATIC would lend a copy or make it available for reproduction, and one state university had been allowed to reproduce it.
  • Authority. The report had been released under Air Force Regulations 200-2 and 190-16, and copies of both were enclosed. The Secretary had presented the summary at a Pentagon press conference in 1955, with copies of the full report available for study. The scanned draft dates that conference 25 August, while other sources give October.[2]
  • Intent. The Air Force had "no intention of withholding this information from the public". It had made "a very definite effort" to provide it by every reasonable means "without undue expense to the Government".

Moss and secrecy

John Emerson Moss (1915–1997) represented California's 3rd congressional district from 1953 to 1978.[4] His campaign for open government:

  • The subcommittee. In 1955 the Special Subcommittee on Government Information, known as the "Moss Subcommittee", was created under the Government Operations Committee, with Speaker Sam Rayburn's backing.[7] It followed growing secrecy rules, including a Defense Department directive of 29 March 1955 that information released to the public must make a "constructive contribution" to national security.[7]
  • UFO correspondence. According to the House historian, Moss's subcommittees fielded thousands of requests on every subject, including from Flying Saucers International and NICAP. Many concerned Special Report 14. The subcommittees "never confirmed or denied the existence of UFOs"; their aim was public access to information.[6]
  • The Act. The campaign took twelve years. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Freedom of Information Act on 4 July 1966, reluctantly and without a ceremony.[4][7]

Context and aftermath

The Air Force's limited circulation of its largest study came three years after the CIA's Robertson Panel. In 1953 the panel recommended that the Air Force "de-emphasize" UFOs and run a public debunking campaign to reduce interest in them. Many researchers believe this shaped later Air Force policy.[2] The 1956 correspondence itself gives cost, not policy, as the reason.[8] The full 312-page report is now freely available online, in a copy archived by the CIA.[5] A University of Ottawa page analysing the report is also listed among the sources, but it showed only a maintenance notice and could not be read.[3]

People and topics

On the Timeline

See every 1956 event on the UAP Timeline →

Further reading

References

Facts in this article are drawn in part from the Wikipedia articles “Project Blue Book (section on Special Report No. 14)”, “John E. Moss”, available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.

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