USG UAP D001 Congress WhiteHouse UFO Correspondence 1998

1320 .4 Aeronautics:UFO Headquarters Action Tracking System (HATS) INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE ACTION ID Number: L11998-00407 . Title: WARD/Sen Snowe fwds ltr from U.F.O. and the recent Mars photo (b) (6) who's interested in Recipient: UHeffernan Author: Organization: SNOWE SENATE Action Office: UWard:S Status: Closed Signature Office: UHeffernan Info offices: UHeffernan, UHeninger, L/Kerwin Date Written : Date Received: Date Concurred: Date Submitted: Date Signed: Date Closed: >>Current Due Date: Original Due Date: 05/18/1998 05/26/1998 06/24/1998 06/24/1998 06/18/1998<< Abstract: SEN SNOWE FWDS LTR FROM (b) (6) INTE:RESTED IN U.FO.'S AND THE RECENT PHOTOS OF MARS WHICH WERE RECENTLY RELEASED. OF STOCKINGTON, MAINE, WHO'S Comments: Enclosures: NO Related Records: Keywords: (b) (5) File Plan: 1320.4 06/24/1998 MAINE U.F.O. MARS Analyst: BMoore Page 1 of 1 Headquarters Action T racking System (HATS) INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE ACTION ID Number: L/1998-00729 Title: Rothman/UFO_Sightings by Astronauts Recipient: UHeffernan Author: Organization: Grassley Senate Action Office: LD/Rothman:P Status: Closed Signature Office: UHeffernan Info Offices: UHeffernan, UHeninger, UKerwin Date Written: Date Received: Date Concurred: Date Submitted: Date Signed: Date Closed: >> Current Due Date: Original Due Date: 08/03/199 LD/Rothman:P Status: Closed Signature Office: UHeffernan Info Offices: UHeffernan, UHeninger, UKerwin Date Written: Date Received: Date Concurred: Date Submitted: Date Signed: Date Closed: >> Current Due Date: Original Due Date: 08/03/1998 08/31/1998 09/04/1998 09/10/1998 08/22/1998<< 08/22/1998 Abstract: Senator Grassley forwards letter from (ts) (S) Astronauts. -- Comments: who is requesting information on UFO sightings by Enclosures: letter Related Records: Keywords: (6J (o) UFO,astronauts,sightings File Plan: 1320.4 09/10/1998 Analyst: JMassey Page 1 of 1 yeA toGU SEP - 4 1998 L:HR:mtg:L/1998-729f The Honorable Charles E. Grassley United States Senate Washington, DC 2051 0 Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you for your letter of August 3, 1998, on behalf of(b <5) is requesting informat ion about the possible sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (U FOs) by NASA astronauts. who Over the years there have been many objects sighted by the astronauts during space missions. Most of these items were later identified by photographs or NORAD records as material from launch vehicles or spacecraft or were such items as water droplets. No unidentified materials were seen on missions to the moon. The Air Force, in the interest of national security, received and investigated all reports for many years but has discontinued this activity. NASA has no program for investigating UFOs and has not withheld information on sightings. In 1976, James Oberg thoroughly researched the UFO/astronaut allegations and published an article about it in SEARCH magazine. We are enclosing that article for (b) (6) which summarizes the current status of NASA's involvement in UFO this activity. NASA has no program for investigating UFOs and has not withheld information on sightings. In 1976, James Oberg thoroughly researched the UFO/astronaut allegations and published an article about it in SEARCH magazine. We are enclosing that article for (b) (6) which summarizes the current status of NASA's involvement in UFO investigations. )nformation. In addition, enclosed is a NASA Fact Sheet We trust this information wi ll aid you in responding to(b) 6 ) inquiry. --- Sincere ly, Edward Heffernan Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs Enclosures + bee: Z/Roger Launius (with incoming) ; provided info Sent to Sherry Kuntz in the Hill office S,ncc tho ··auron.iut UFO" genre is one of rhe m13in pillolrs o f VFO ovidcr1ce. thi5 study c lafml n g ! hat the enti re set of C .)Scs i1 inv.,..l id t..Vlth W 1if 0U 1110U 5iy CC fCCl.?1"18<J 15eeptic. ism and cr i tic ism from UFO buffs. Aation~I objections and arguments wiH bo printed and answered in a subseQuent is'5ue of this magazina. Critics are urged to raise specific points not address°'d to cite and in docum.ant facts which might modify or invalidate conclusions in the study. tho study. or James E. Oberg Associate Editor " Space World" magazine Story! SGM{q ~ f'\~9 ~\?-j ,1{ WiN T~R 1<;46 ( 1H~~ ij,J?_'lJ P/\LM~ fvBL\CA'11ou s f\l'' E. Oberg Associate Editor " Space World" magazine Story! SGM{q ~ f'\~9 ~\?-j ,1{ WiN T~R 1<;46 ( 1H~~ ij,J?_'lJ P/\LM~ fvBL\CA'11ou s f\l''\1-\~ f\<;T.) l-Ji ~c... S~Y OG ._f 1,25' Su\1\e C.1.1f7 pr:c~ Space flight has opened many mysteries. True, scie11tists prefer to list tlie puzzles solved and u11knoums discovered, but as men venture beyond the earth it is inevitable that new mysteries will be encountered. Somewhere out there, many obsen:ers believe, are intelligent species with technological civilizations · far more advanced tha,z that of Earth. Perhaps they are sending us radio signals we have not recognized. Perhaps they have left artifacts of past visits for us to find. Perhaps they are even_ now keeping the earth under surveillance. If they are out there, someday we will meet them. As illustrated in science fiction, this meeting will probably occur in space. Have such meetings already occurred? Have astronauts and cosmonauts already seen alien spacecraft? The UFO lite!ature is full of tales of "space UFOs". Are any ofthem valid? What can a careful study reveal? H ardly a UFO book or movie is complete without the standard assertion that "astronauts have seen UFOs too". While critics may attack the character or intelligence of many UFO witnesses, they cannot use these tactics on American and Russian space pilots. Where UFO photographs can be accused of distortion and forgery, photographs taken by astronauts and processed by While critics may attack the character or intelligence of many UFO witnesses, they cannot use these tactics on American and Russian space pilots. Where UFO photographs can be accused of distortion and forgery, photographs taken by astronauts and processed by NASA must be of the highest trustworthiness. Hence, most UFO scholars consider the family of astronaut UFO sightings to be one of the strongest bodi~s of evidence in the past thirty years. The best of these cases include astronaut James McOivitt's sighting of o( an "unidentified spacecraft" near his Gemini-4 space capsule in 1965, a curious photo of a pair of UFOs with glowing propulsion fields taken by the Gemini-7 astronauts. reports of nearby objects from X-15 and Mercury spacecraft. tales of how ~he 1968-1969 Apollo moon shots were followed by U.FOs on their way to the moon, and reports and pbutographs of objects seen by crewmen on the Skylab space station. Last year, the National Inves- appeal selected to many on A erial tigations Committee Phenomena the (NICAP) "McDivitt UFO" photo as one of the four best photographs ever taken. The "astronaut UFO" sightings must seriou:i researchers for a number of reasons. The witnesses and the photographs are unimpeachable as to honesty and authenticity. The conditions of the space missions can be calculated and recorded, and every object near the spacecraft can be researchers for a number of reasons. The witnesses and the photographs are unimpeachable as to honesty and authenticity. The conditions of the space missions can be calculated and recorded, and every object near the spacecraft can be determined by con­ sulting the giant space radars of the North Defense Command (NORAD), headquartered inside Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. and Extensive on-board tape recorder transcripts may be available witness testimony. to obtain direct eye­ debriefings American crew Air With all these facts and assumptions in mind, and mindful of the nume rous 'unsolved' cases which might tell much about the lJFO phenomenon, I began a special research program into this particular body of evidence. As an aerospace writer. historian, and re­ searcher, I felt that my experience with astronautics, computers, Air 38 Force operations, and space miss:ons might give me new insights into this most puzzling series of cases. I was not disappointed, and my results were startling. of later accretion The basic truths behind these sightings seems lately to have gathered an exaggeration, confusion, and outright fiction. The 1968 "Condon Report" on UFOs (conducted by the University of the U.S. Air Force) Colorado for found itself unable to penetrate three specific cases, which the analyst felt were • a "challenge" to any serious began Stories investigator. circulating about sightings of lunar surface lights and structures, and .S. Air Force) Colorado for found itself unable to penetrate three specific cases, which the analyst felt were • a "challenge" to any serious began Stories investigator. circulating about sightings of lunar surface lights and structures, and the discovery of artifacts on the moon, about near approaches of structured objects, and about attempts at radio contact between Apollo capsules and UFOs. Recent books on UFOs give lists of astronaut sightings which are out of numeric sequence, misdated, mispeUed, and otherwise distorted. My research has revealed a few examples of deliberate photo forgeries by UFO buffs or opportunistic authors. the NASA My investigations in frl'cly gi,·1•n arch,n•s has fl'\"l•aled ca..~es whcrl' UFO rt•~c:i rchrr; withheld Cl•rtain informa­ them by N:\SA tion officials. infori:tation which would have clearly explained m;my cases which the authors wantt•d to appear mysterious. So the time has come to take a ne\\' this whote phenomenon. What is the truth about "astronaut li rOs"? look at "whitewash" of The first step in any research might be with the Condon report. t:-iought by many to have been commissioned the UFO as a phenomenon. UFO enthusiasts are accustomed to hearing harsh criticism of almost all aspects of this study. but my own objections to the "astronaut UFO" report. t:-iought by many to have been commissioned the UFO as a phenomenon. UFO enthusiasts are accustomed to hearing harsh criticism of almost all aspects of this study. but my own objections to the "astronaut UFO" section is from a novel angle. My own research suggests that the Condon investigator, far from being the best man for the job, was clearly unqualified to evaluate the difficult cases. He was not familiar with the terminology of space flight or the basics of orbital flight trajectories, as I am. As a result , he ignored possible incorrecUy while explanations eliminating other possible answers. In other words, far from being a coverup, this chapter of the Condon report is superficial. It is entirely worthless as an endorsement of the unexplained and unexplainable nature of several astronaut sightings which I will discuss. I can prove this remark­ investigator able assertion serious enough the evidence, much of which has never before been published. to any to consider all The Condon report does give some details about the environment of astronaut sightings, but even here does not go far enough. More stress needs to be put on the visual and photo­ graphic limitations of space flight: the windows are far smaller than popularly realized (about half the size of this open magazine at arm's length), and to for many years were subject obscuration and smudging by seepage o( sealant graphic limitations of space flight: the windows are far smaller than popularly realized (about half the size of this open magazine at arm's length), and to for many years were subject obscuration and smudging by seepage o( sealant and by contamination by rocket fuel. At various p_oints in the fligh t, the spacecraft was surrounded by cl ouds of d~bris (leaking fuel, dum ped water, chipping paint, fraying insulation, ejected equipment. and more). while the inside of the weight• less cabin was usually plagued with fl oating particles of dust and debris which often passed in front of camt!ras pointing out windows. Other satellites sho uld have been visible, since few people realize that on any clear night ~ - -+s _ _ ,., - ,e-- ....... ,., ,+- ............ ,., _ ,., • .., .... ...... -«• Dc:sµitc the pt!r.~istl'11t all pho /nJ!rupl1s tahl'll by .V,\S.-\ i11 space arc i11 tlie public domui11. That is. any p ict ure tuhc:,: by 1.111 astro11a111 or 011 earth resource, satellite is ai:ailablr. to anyo11c who wants to pay fur i t. rumo rs of '.,;ccrct space p ict'"rcs •. There are foi: r tiers of plwto,;:-:iph Ji·cilcbility. but two a:-e rescri:ed for 11ewsme11 only The ~/r wants to pay fur i t. rumo rs of '.,;ccrct space p ict'"rcs •. There are foi: r tiers of plwto,;:-:iph Ji·cilcbility. but two a:-e rescri:ed for 11ewsme11 only The ~/ructurc is us f olluws: A . The most p o pular space photographs /alien arc lithographed for general free di.,;tributiCJ11 to anyone who asr.s for them. Seueral dozen new pho tographs are added to this list eucry year. Cost to .VAS,\ is a few ce11ts per print. 8 . The N.-lS.-l Public Information Offices at uarious centers and at for headquarters prints gfossy photographs of t imely news stories distribution tu the news media. Hundreds of these photographs are released euery year. but only crrtified newsmen can receiue them for ~~ . C. .\!any thousands of other photographs and drawi11gs may be of interest to the news media and arc therefore fifad at public i11formatio11 offices. but stock copies are not kept. Each request must be filled by actual photo lab orders. which co:;ts NASA abo ut one dollar per photograph. D. A,1y citizen who wants copies of any photograph listed in 'B' or 'C' aboue con get it, but it is entirely reasonable for NASA to expect him t o pay for it. News bureau photographs. along with all other (light photography-stills and mouies-can be ordered from Bara Studios, P.O of any photograph listed in 'B' or 'C' aboue con get it, but it is entirely reasonable for NASA to expect him t o pay for it. News bureau photographs. along with all other (light photography-stills and mouies-can be ordered from Bara Studios, P.O. Box 486, Bladensburg, MD 20710. The cost of any photograph ordered by st ock number is seueral dollars apiece. A ny cross-referencing or • researching will also cost money. . Some ground photographs of astronaut accidents, au topsies, and medical examinations are not releasable for publication. On seueral Gemini {lights, special photographic experiments were undertaken for the DoD, but these inuolued special cameras and exclusiuely ear th surface targe{s. In neither case would it be possible to withhold any hypothetical UFO photographs from the public. Astronaut photographs are indexed by a code which specifies year taken and frame number. S66- 12387, for example, would be a NASA photo (not necessarily a space photo) taken in 1966. Beginning w i th Apollo, space photos were also indexed w ith a mission code, r oll number and frame num ber (neither of which were repeated on later {lights). For example, ASJ 6·108-13005 u•as taken on the Apollo-16 {light, with the 108th roll of the Apollo project (liglit film. Mouie film is indexed per magazine with similar numbers. Euery photograph euer taken by American astronauts for N ASA is on file w ith Bara Studios and can be obtained by on the Apollo-16 {light, with the 108th roll of the Apollo project (liglit film. Mouie film is indexed per magazine with similar numbers. Euery photograph euer taken by American astronauts for N ASA is on file w ith Bara Studios and can be obtained by anyone wifling to pay for them. Writers who produce 'secret NASA UFO photographs' which they claim are being hidden from the American public are doing a gross disseruice to one of the most open and cooperatiue public informat ion offices of any federal agency. an o bserver on Earth can see a number of orbiting objects with only half an effort. Out or this "backg?ound noise", can we separate the "signal" which will indicate the existence of UFOs? These problems all are of interest to space officials, and numerous studies have been made. Fragments might imply a structural failure (a rescue ship was almost sent to Skylab-3 because of the crew's observation of leaking fuel droplets). Debris inside t!1e cabin can irritate eyes and damage the electronic gear behind the instrument panels. Other satellites might be dangerous due to the potential of coll ision o r they might be of intelligence interest if they are frcm somt! other nation. Therefore, space sighting might as easily be vital for any mysterious 39 NASA to know about as it might be a true UFO: Careful investigations are called for. What are some of the most famous cases, and what are the facts? Interpre­ tations may differ, but productive thinking can only be done when all the information is at hand. Some o( It is to find or understand; ful investigations are called for. What are some of the most famous cases, and what are the facts? Interpre­ tations may differ, but productive thinking can only be done when all the information is at hand. Some o( It is to find or understand; other hard information, some researchers, may have been deliberate­ ly withheld. ·some classical cases may consist of made-up fantasies. You can soon judge for yourself. available to Has there been any attempt to "cover up" space sightings (a common plea when no t!Vidence is available, even sieve-like government secrecy)? Are astronauts "muzzled" about UFOs? Has fifteen age of this in ~ - · - · - · - · - - - - - - - · - • - - - - . - - - - - - • . . - - - - - - - ... - - - - ♦--- - - - ·- - · - - · -■---- _ , . _ __ - " - · - - - - - - -- - t 1 -~ f ' . ~ • ~ .....: • · ~'{~,;t't( ✓"~•'·-:..,........,:-.,:-,::,"?\~-."':,~~""t".:~..-~~,.-,r-•r·,r• . . , -~~ •· ,~-•l"""'-..,.,, , , ..~ 1.~~-·••·---.'",....:"-r-•':·""'" ,. f ' I i ! .: ;,_<..-:::~~ -' . ~~ The "McOivitt UFO", pr ize-winning astronaut photograph taken on Gemini-4. Actually, McOivitt_axplained later after tho flight that the sun was coming across the window as the_ spacecraft rolled, the sun rays struck ,. f ' I i ! .: ;,_<..-:::~~ -' . ~~ The "McOivitt UFO", pr ize-winning astronaut photograph taken on Gemini-4. Actually, McOivitt_axplained later after tho flight that the sun was coming across the window as the_ spacecraft rolled, the sun rays struck a metal bolt, causing the'Ci lares in the camera lens''. NASA photo 65-H-1013. years of manned spaceflight uncovered any evidence at all which even remotely suggests that Earth is being visited and observed by advanced spacesliips from another world? Let's look at the evidence. On June 3, 1965, rookie astronauts Jim McDivitt and Ed White blasted of( from Cape Kennedy (now again Cape Canaveral), squeezed into their Gemini-4 capsule. The two youngest• ever . American spacemen were to spend four days in orbit, tripling the previous US record. They would be the first American space crewmen to have time to sightsee in space, once major experiments like a booster rendezvous and a walk in space were completed. Approximately thirty hours into the flight ( while White was asleep) , McDivitt reported that he had seen an object in space near his space capsule. It appeared to be cylindrical with ·'an arm sticking out", possibly on a collision course. Interested N AS.-\ officials in Ho uston asked NORAD which other space satellites were near Cemini--1 at the time of the sigh ting, and NORAD came up with a list of about a dozen objects. Interested N AS.-\ officials in Ho uston asked NORAD which other space satellites were near Cemini--1 at the time of the sigh ting, and NORAD came up with a list of about a dozen objects. All of them were pieces of tiny debris or small scicntit"ic satellites except one: the giant, " winged" meteor satC'llitc, Pegasus-2. It seemed to iit the descrip­ tion radioed down by McDivitt, so NASA announced that the object had been identified. But Pegasus had been more than a thousand miles away, and McDivitt clearly saw an object much closer, much more detailed, and in an orbit very close to his own ("Collision course" to a pilot means that the relative angle of sight is unchanging, which would not be the case for any satellite crossing McDivitt's orbit). The object became a UFO when nobody could identify it. It has remained a today, but not any UFO up until longer. the since McDivitt's hasty attempt to take a photograph of the object thrqugh his smeared window was apparently fruit• object's motion less, combined with the slow stabilization spin of the spaceship carried it into the glare of the sun after about 30 seconds. The astronaut later recounted how he went through all the films of the flight (every roll of film is accounted for on a flight manifest, so they do not disappear) and exposed the spaceship carried it into the glare of the sun after about 30 seconds. The astronaut later recounted how he went through all the films of the flight (every roll of film is accounted for on a flight manifest, so they do not disappear) and exposed or blank. This mission had been the first night in which space photography was a major experiment, and the glaring sunlight of space had invalidated many pre-flight exposure settings. :\lcDivitt did not find any- • thing which looked like ""his UFO". What was it he ,aw? Why has it become such a prominl•nt UFO case? found many over­ 40 And if the pictures did not turn out, where did NICAP get its "top four" photograph (which shows, not a winged cylinder, but a smeared blob)? We can answer these questions at last. The first hint as to the true identity of this space UFO can be found in McDivitt's own words, given at a press conference a week after the flight when his memory was fresh: "It looked a lot like an upper staie of a booster". Gemini does have a booster just like it, and McDivitt had been carrying out maneuvers near it early in the flight. Why didn't the -list from NORAD include the Gemini-4 boost er rocket? earlier tracking any other NORAD had been the objects, but NASA had not asked about Gemini-4 and its own associated debris- it had asked about Gemini the -list from NORAD include the Gemini-4 boost er rocket? earlier tracking any other NORAD had been the objects, but NASA had not asked about Gemini-4 and its own associated debris- it had asked about Gemini--! satellites. and Anyone familiar with computerized information systems (one of my professional specialities) can guess what happened : the computer was told it to given a "query" which compare Gemini--t with the other satellites. The computer never knew where the Gemini booster was relati\•e to the spacecraft, since it had not been asked. :\lcDivitt had been visually tracking the thirty foot long cylind1r at a range of onl y 75 miles a few hours earlier, but this large satellite never list" because made the "NORAD Arti1t', ronrliti on o t thu ,ntron,,u1s· vlow o f 1ho ro n do.r 0 0 u <J ovatv a: ion pod after it hai boon jotti1oncd from the Gemi ni adaptor ioc t iun. Gorn,ni r;,dar locked o n to evaluation pod. t> --.,.-~r..-~•r ·~ l ( i t· ~ .-:---•' • ... . . •• •"t'"':•~ · r -n -· '"-] . . ' . . ' • • .. -· .....- - . . : - _,..Js...:'11, . :.l• • ' ...- "... . . .. .., . . c J , . • : ., Scott Carpenter took th is n -· '"-] . . ' . . ' • • .. -· .....- - . . : - _,..Js...:'11, . :.l• • ' ...- "... . . .. .., . . c J , . • : ., Scott Carpenter took th is photo of a s ubsatellit e balloon jettisoned by h is ·,· ... £' . . ., . - --.,-.. . ', ' ance and even make i t l ook like two objects. The potato-shaped grey b lob is the pod's in sulation blanket. T h i • sequence of p ictures illustrate• the problem o f Identi fying photographs of objects in tho glare o f space. 41 ~ --' ·-·. -•-,,-- • C ~ - ~=- ,.....,--.,•·-•~----.··.•-c-,,.--~··o,•:·,1 .... .. .. . . .;, .-J --.1 . -~1 . ! I ; ~1• 1 · 1 ......- -. . ,. ·...~.. were red and teary due to a reaction with the cabin atmosphere and an accidental massive urine spill. "I didn't think I was going to be able t~ hack it", McDivitt later had radioed to Earth. . blobs- This famous UFO case now becomes that of a pilot with watering eves catching sight of an object in p~rallel orbft, an object which he had already misidentified a few hours earlier. As to the photograph, an inves• tigator must go through all the film of the night to realize how common such (o\·ere.'<posures, r~tlcct i0m. glare orbft, an object which he had already misidentified a few hours earlier. As to the photograph, an inves• tigator must go through all the film of the night to realize how common such (o\·ere.'<posures, r~tlcct i0m. glare. etc. ) ll'erc. Both NAS.-l. and ;\lc:Di\·itt han• agrel.'d that tl-ie sc,qucnCI.' ot' mo\·ie irames are a ,iew out t!u: winc.uw. showit\~ sunlii::ht r~tl ~·cti11~ off a br\t. a~ain:;~ the dirty window thinks dii'forently b,:c:tu~e <)t t!ll' b:!tk of its cop,· of th<! ph,Ho is a handwritten '.~ !C..\F' ~la~s. light of 42 (nobody known by whom) note stating that McDivitt {nobody• knows when) had communicated .{nobody knows how) the fact that the picture showed "his UFO". (This was made clear by a telephone conversation between the author and Jack Acuff of NICAP on March 5, 1976). Why has this case achie\'ed such notoriety'? It probably resulted from the enthusiasm of UFO believers. the naive openness of NASA public relations officials, and the publicity­ seeking opportunism of some of the principals. \lcDivitt himself did little to clear the case up. instead using it as a ticket onto natil•nal TV talk shows and of NASA public relations officials, and the publicity­ seeking opportunism of some of the principals. \lcDivitt himself did little to clear the case up. instead using it as a ticket onto natil•nal TV talk shows and news his (especially interviews rr.tirement in 19~. To add to the mystPry. th~ former spaceman assl'rts. "I have never bcrn ablt- to it.:entify it, and I don't think anyone ever will." after •' ;.· ' .,- + . . ' •.. ..,., ~ ~:· 1•;) .i. . ...'-I .,. t r t·· nobody thought to ask about it! The list was incomplete! What we do know from the complete transcripts Gemini-4 (including the on-board tape recorder as well as space-to-ground links), is that the UFO appeared at the same point in the Gemini orbit where the booster had been rept-3tedly spotted earlier in the flight. '.\fcDi\•itt had once described seeing his booster with straps h~nglng from it. Furthermore, on at least one occasion on the first day, McDivitt had at first been unable to recognize the booster when he ·saw il because it was close to the glare of· the sun! Thi5 had been :it a range of less than ten miles. Yet another iniport:int factor unknown to t!1e Cr1nciL•11 ·saw il because it was close to the glare of· the sun! Thi5 had been :it a range of less than ten miles. Yet another iniport:int factor unknown to t!1e Cr1nciL•11 report w:i, that '.\leDivin •.•::t.; C\J1:1p!:iini:1i;: ro thl-'· ni ~ht surgt:on abou 1. his t'Yl'$ight