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 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 ATIC's 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