What Mc Donald Found Inside Project Blue Book

Introduction

Atmospheric physicist James E. McDonald’s three visits to Project Blue Book at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in 1966 are important because they put his later criticism on a firmer footing than second-hand UFO literature alone. McDonald went into the Air Force’s own files, read case reports, requested copies and compared official conclusions with the underlying documentation. By his own account, seeing the files changed his understanding of the subject; contemporary and later sources place his three 1966 visits in June and July.[ncas.org]files.ncas.orgNCAS FilesUFO Symposium 1968: McDonald Statement…

What he found did not establish that the Air Force possessed proof of extraterrestrial craft, still less that it was suppressing such proof. It did, however, give McDonald concrete grounds for a narrower criticism: potentially interesting reports could be poorly investigated, incompletely documented, questionably classified or difficult even for an authorised researcher to reconstruct. His encounters with the 1952 Davis-Monthan file, the Robertson Panel report and military radar cases show why firsthand archival access became central to his argument.[noufors.com]noufors.com1952 05 6314114 Davis MonthanAFB Arizona1952-05-6314114-Davis-MonthanAFB-ArizonaJanuary 6, 2015…Published: January 6, 2015

McDonald’s three visits to Wright-Patterson

McDonald’s intensive UFO work began in 1966. In his prepared statement to the US House Committee on Science and Astronautics two years later, he recalled that a Tucson incident and the controversial Michigan sightings of March 1966 prompted him to devote his summer to a closer examination of the subject. During May and June he investigated both private UFO organisations and the official programme, and said this experience rapidly altered his view of the problem’s scientific importance.[NCAS Files]files.ncas.orgNCAS FilesUFO Symposium 1968: McDonald Statement…

The surviving accounts identify three Blue Book visits that summer. A later reconstruction based on McDonald material and Ann Druffel’s biography reports that he read roughly 80 case reports during part of his first visit, continued examining additional files and obtained copies of selected material. It places his second visit in late June and the third in July. McDonald’s own published discussion supplies particularly useful dates for two encounters: he said that on his next trip, 20 June 1966, he requested a photocopy of the Robertson Panel report, and that on his third visit, 30 July 1966, Major Hector Quintanilla told him the CIA had reclassified it.[UFOs Scientific Research]ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.comUFOs Scientific Research Unidentified Anomalous PhenomenaUFOs Scientific ResearchUnidentified Anomalous Phenomena - scientific research: February 2017…Published: February 2017

The Robertson document is especially revealing because it shows what “access” could mean in practice. On his first visit, McDonald said, he asked Quintanilla for the full report of the CIA-sponsored Robertson Panel of January 1953. Quintanilla supplied it, telling him it had been routinely declassified under a Department of Defense rule. McDonald made extensive notes and discussed the document with him. When he subsequently asked for a photocopy, however, the position changed: by 30 July, he was told that the CIA had reclassified the report and that he would not receive the requested copy.[Saturday Night Uforia]saturdaynightuforia.comOpen source on saturdaynightuforia.com.

That episode can sound more sinister in retrospective accounts than the evidence warrants. McDonald himself used it chiefly to illustrate confused institutional handling of UFO policy. He even said that, by 1966, he found no indication that senior officials in the Foreign Technology Division were familiar with the Robertson Panel report: Quintanilla told him that neither the division commander nor its chief scientist had asked to see the file. In McDonald’s interpretation, that suggested discontinuity and bureaucratic neglect rather than a smoothly managed secret programme.[Saturday Night Uforia]saturdaynightuforia.comOpen source on saturdaynightuforia.com.

The case files that shaped his criticism

McDonald did not treat every report in Blue Book as anomalous. His earlier experience had taught him how readily aircraft, planets, meteors, balloons and other ordinary phenomena could generate UFO reports. What surprised him at Wright-Patterson was the presence of cases which, in his judgement, remained difficult after the conventional possibilities were considered. In his 1968 congressional appearance he described the Air Force collection as “very impressive and surprising” and said its overall pattern differed markedly from what he had expected before examining it.[NCAS Files]files.ncas.orgNCAS FilesUFO Symposium 1968: McDonald Statement…

Several files help show what he meant.

Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, 1 May 1952. This became a particularly pointed example because McDonald was looking for documentation that apparently should have been present but could not initially be found. The incident concerned reports that two bright objects had approached and paced a B-36 near Davis-Monthan. On 14 July 1966, after what he called a “second unsuccessful effort” to locate the relevant record in Blue Book, McDonald wrote to Quintanilla and supplied a reconstructed account obtained from Major Rudy Pestalozzi, the former intelligence officer involved. His letter explicitly asked that the material be inserted into the Blue Book files.[Noufors]noufors.com1952 05 6314114 Davis MonthanAFB Arizona1952-05-6314114-Davis-MonthanAFB-ArizonaJanuary 6, 2015…Published: January 6, 2015

The Davis-Monthan episode therefore matters independently of anyone’s preferred explanation for the sighting. McDonald was testing the archival record against a living witness who had performed UFO-investigation duties for the Air Force. When he could not find the expected documentation, he attempted to rebuild it from the original participant. J. Allen Hynek later discussed the same episode as a “missing report” case and noted that at least part of the documentation ultimately appeared in the Blue Book microfilm.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies SPHEREDr. J. ALLEN HYNEKCenter for UFO Studies SPHEREDr. J. ALLEN HYNEK

Haneda AFB, Japan, 5–6 August 1952. McDonald later worked in detail from a 25-page Blue Book case file concerning visual observations by Air Force personnel, ground-radar contacts and an F-94 interception near Tokyo. The surviving version of his analysis is useful because it shows how closely he read the underlying paperwork. He compared times appearing in different portions of the file, distinguished visual from radar observations rather than simply combining them, and noted where information necessary to evaluate the radar contacts had not been followed up. He also acknowledged an important limitation: his copies had witness names removed.[Ufologie]ufologie.patrickgross.orgUFOs at close sight: The Haneda AFB case, Japan, August 5, 1952 - James E. McDonald…Published: August 5, 1952

Haneda illustrates the difference between McDonald’s method and the simplified claim that he merely counted “unexplained UFOs”. He tried to reconstruct what each instrument and witness had actually recorded. He noted internal inconsistencies and missing information while also challenging later conventional explanations. The case remained unidentified in Blue Book when he checked it, although that status itself did not establish what the reported phenomenon was.[Ufologie]ufologie.patrickgross.orgUFOs at close sight: The Haneda AFB case, Japan, August 5, 1952 - James E. McDonald…Published: August 5, 1952

Lakenheath-Bentwaters, England, 13–14 August 1956. This became another of McDonald’s strongest examples because it involved military radar, visual observations and an interceptor. He said his analysis rested on a 30-page Blue Book case file, supplemented by material in the Condon Report. Again, the copies supplied to him had the names of military personnel removed, preventing him from personally interviewing the principal witnesses.[Ufology]ufology.patrickgross.orgUFOs at close sight: the Bentwater 1956 radar, ground, air, and visual case - study by James E. McDonaldDecember 27, 1969…Published: December 27, 1969

The paperwork itself frustrated him. McDonald described the Blue Book file as confusing and pointed to the reporting format used under Air Force Regulation 200-2: answers had been recorded in a standardised structure that made later reconstruction difficult when the corresponding questions or contextual information were not readily apparent. Yet the file contained enough detail for him to identify different radar systems, the sequence of reports from Bentwaters and Lakenheath, and the involvement of an RAF interceptor. For McDonald, this was precisely the kind of technically interesting military case that should have received intensive scientific follow-up while witnesses and instrument records were readily available.[Ufologie]ufologie.patrickgross.orgUFOs at close sight: 22 years of inadequate investigations, James E. McDonald…

His surviving papers reinforce how central such material became to his work. The University of Arizona’s archival description of the James E. McDonald collection identifies an entire series as “Project Blue Book Radar-visual Files and Reports, 1947–1968”, alongside his broader research files, correspondence, interviews and recordings. That is strong archival evidence that Blue Book case documentation was not incidental to his UFO research but one of its major working collections.[Kirk McDonald]kirkmcd.princeton.eduKirk Mc Donald Arizona Archives OnlineKirk Mc Donald Arizona Archives Online

What the files actually allowed McDonald to argue

The distinction between an unexplained report and evidence for an extraordinary vehicle is essential. Blue Book ultimately recorded 12,618 reports, of which the Air Force said 701 remained “Unidentified”. Its official conclusions were nevertheless that no investigated UFO had been shown to threaten national security, embody technology beyond contemporary scientific knowledge or represent an extraterrestrial vehicle.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational Archives Project BLUE BOOK

McDonald disagreed with the adequacy of that assessment, but his criticism operated at the level of individual records. A Blue Book classification could be challenged by returning to witness statements, radar reports, weather information, timings and correspondence and asking whether the proposed explanation actually fitted those data. Conversely, an “Unidentified” classification merely established that Blue Book had not satisfactorily identified a report; it did not settle the report’s ultimate cause.

This explains why the files mattered so much to him. McDonald entered the subject already familiar, as an atmospheric physicist, with phenomena frequently invoked to explain UFO observations. In his congressional statement he specifically addressed mirages, ice-crystal optical effects, atmospheric refraction, electrical phenomena and abnormal radar propagation. He accepted that such mechanisms explained some reports but argued that they had sometimes been invoked without sufficient quantitative support.[NCAS Files]files.ncas.orgNCAS FilesUFO Symposium 1968: McDonald Statement…

The Blue Book archive therefore gave him something more useful than a catalogue of mysteries: it gave him proposed explanations that could be checked. Haneda let him compare radar and visual documentation with atmospheric-propagation arguments. Lakenheath let him examine multiple radar systems and the sequence of an interception. Davis-Monthan exposed a different problem — whether a significant contemporary report had been preserved adequately in the first place. Together these examples formed the documentary basis for his charge that the programme’s investigative quality was uneven.

There were also important limitations on what McDonald could know. His copies of some military files had names removed, preventing direct follow-up with witnesses. Some records contained timing inconsistencies or omitted technical details he considered essential. In Davis-Monthan, the expected report could not initially be located at all. Those deficiencies can reasonably support an argument about poor record-keeping, inadequate investigation or barriers to independent verification. They cannot, without additional evidence, establish that missing or redacted information concealed extraordinary technology.[patrickgross.org]ufologie.patrickgross.orgUFOs at close sight: The Haneda AFB case, Japan, August 5, 1952 - James E. McDonald…Published: August 5, 1952

Why firsthand access matters to suppression claims

McDonald’s Blue Book visits are relevant to later claims of UFO-research suppression precisely because they provide an unusually good test of what the surviving record does and does not support. He was not an outsider speculating about files he had never seen. He gained access to Wright-Patterson, examined official material, corresponded directly with Blue Book chief Hector Quintanilla and later presented detailed case criticism before Congress. His description of how rapidly his views changed after examining the official and private records is preserved in the 1968 congressional proceedings.[NCAS Files]files.ncas.orgNCAS FilesUFO Symposium 1968: McDonald Statement…

There is genuine documentary friction here. A report McDonald had already read could subsequently become unavailable to him, as happened with the Robertson Panel document. Witness names were removed from copies of military cases. An important Davis-Monthan report was not where he expected it to be. Such episodes explain why suspicions about information control grew around Blue Book and why researchers continue to scrutinise McDonald’s papers.

But those episodes need to be separated from a stronger proposition: that officials deliberately suppressed McDonald because he was approaching a hidden UFO or antigravity programme. The material from his Blue Book work does not demonstrate that. The Robertson Panel episode, for example, documents a classification dispute involving the CIA, but McDonald was initially allowed to read the document and take extensive notes. His own questioning of Quintanilla led him to conclude that senior Foreign Technology Division officials apparently had shown little interest in that very report.[Saturday Night Uforia]saturdaynightuforia.comOpen source on saturdaynightuforia.com.

Nor were the Blue Book records themselves permanently removed from public scrutiny. After the programme ended in December 1969, its documentation was transferred to the National Archives. The surviving collection now comprises roughly 37 cubic feet of chronological case files, about two cubic feet of project or administrative material and approximately three cubic feet of Office of Special Investigations records; the principal textual collection is available on 94 rolls of microfilm.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational Archives Project BLUE BOOK

That surviving archive makes McDonald’s 1966 visits historically valuable in a second way: later researchers can compare at least some of what he wrote with the official record he said he examined. His correspondence over Davis-Monthan appears within reproduced Blue Book material, while his later analyses identify specific reports, document lengths, reporting formats and omissions rather than merely alleging that secret files existed.[noufors.com]noufors.com1952 05 6314114 Davis MonthanAFB Arizona1952-05-6314114-Davis-MonthanAFB-ArizonaJanuary 6, 2015…Published: January 6, 2015

The strongest conclusion is consequently narrower, but more securely documented, than a suppression narrative. McDonald’s three 1966 visits exposed him to a much richer and messier body of official UFO evidence than he had expected. He found military reports he considered scientifically important, files whose official treatment he regarded as inadequate, missing or incomplete documentation, redactions that hindered follow-up, and an unusual classification reversal over the Robertson Panel report. Those discoveries became central to his public criticism of Project Blue Book. They provide substantial evidence for a dispute over investigative competence, institutional priorities and access to information; by themselves, they do not establish a programme to silence McDonald or conceal proven extraterrestrial or antigravity technology.[ncas.org]files.ncas.orgNCAS FilesUFO Symposium 1968: McDonald Statement…

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to What Mc Donald Found Inside Project Blue Book. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects

By Edward J. Ruppelt

The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, written by Captain Edward Ruppelt in 1956, was the first serious, unbiased account written abo...

See on Amazon

Book

The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry

By Joseph Allen Hynek

Cited by the New York Review of Books as "the best brief for visitation," this classic study presents an analysis of UFO reports and conc...

See on Amazon

Book

Firestorm: Dr. James E. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science

By Ann Druffel

The authorised biography of Dr James E McDonald's research into the UFO phenomenon. McDonald worked in the 1950s and 1960s to raise the U...

See on Amazon

Book

UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry

By Michael D. Swords

Governments around the world have had to deal with the UFO phenomenon for a good part of a century. How and why they did so is the subjec...

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:The Report on Unidentified Flying ObjectsThe UFO Experience: A Scientific InquiryFirestorm: Dr. James E. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Selected fromProject Blue Book patch oneBay.co.uk.

Related eBay result

Vintage Soft Book Cottontail Corner Pre-Cut Project Sewing Kit Notion Applique P

GBP 17.87 | Shipping GBP 14.24UsedSeller: vintagedopedealer (100.0% positive)Ships from: US

View listing on eBay

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/ufosymposium/mcdonald.html

2. Source: noufors.com
Title: 1952 05 6314114 Davis MonthanAFB Arizona
Link:https://noufors.com/Documents/Blue%20Book%20UFO%20Files/1950s/1952-05-6314114-Davis-MonthanAFB-Arizona.pdf

Published: January 6, 2015

3. Source: archives.gov
Title: National Archives Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos

4. Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/catalog-bulk-downloads/uap-bulk-download

5. Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary

6. Source: archives.gov
Title: ¿Registros muestran prueba de ovnis? | National Archives
Link:https://www.archives.gov/espanol/ovnis

7. Source: unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov
Title: project blue book looking to the film record
Link:https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2013/09/30/project-blue-book-looking-to-the-film-record/

8. Source: congress.gov
Title: joint committee print
Link:https://www.congress.gov/committee-print/112th-congress/joint-committee-print/76190

9. Source: noufors.com
Title: The 1952 Sighting Wave
Link:https://noufors.com/The_1952_Sighting_Wave.html

10. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap02.htm

11. Source: files.ncas.org
Title: sec ii
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-ii.htm

12. Source: archive.org
Title: DTIC AD0688332 djvu.txt
Link:https://archive.org/stream/DTIC_AD0688332/DTIC_AD0688332_djvu.txt

13. Source: files.ncas.org
Link:https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s5chap02.htm

14. Source: youtube.com
Title: Project Blue Book
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Al9uCpGfQ

15. Source: saturdaynightuforia.com
Link:https://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/articles/articlehtml/ost-macdonald.html

16. Source: ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
Title: UFOs Scientific Research Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena
Link:https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2017/02/

Published: February 2017

17. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://www.ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/hanedamcdonald.htm

Published: August 5, 1952

18. Source: cufos.org
Title: Center for UFO Studies SPHEREDr. J. ALLEN HYNEK
Link:https://cufos.org/PDFs/books/The_Hynek_UFO_Report.pdf

19. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://www.ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/mcdonaldscd.htm

20. Source: ufology.patrickgross.org
Link:https://www.ufology.patrickgross.org/htm/bentwaters56mcd.htm

Published: December 27, 1969

21. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/bentwaters56mcd.htm

22. Source: kirkmcd.princeton.edu
Title: Kirk Mc Donald Arizona Archives Online
Link:https://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_arizona_archives_ms328.pdf

23. Source: wikidisc.org
Title: Condon Report | Wiki Disc
Link:https://www.wikidisc.org/wiki/Condon_Report

24. Source: ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
Title: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena
Link:https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2024/07/

25. Source: media.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Link:https://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/ufo-files-national-archives/

26. Source: ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
Title: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena
Link:https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2016/03/50-years-on-2nd-april-1966-balwyn.html

27. Source: ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
Title: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena
Link:https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2015/01/cold-case-review-moe-victoria-mcdonald.html

28. Source: doczz.net
Link:https://doczz.net/doc/3755137/here—lamar-university

29. Source: loveable-eccentric.blogspot.com
Title: WORL D ENCYCLOPEDIA: Al-Qaeda
Link:https://loveable-eccentric.blogspot.com/2012/04/al-qaeda.html

30. Source: pt.scribd.com
Link:https://pt.scribd.com/document/427182434/Ufo

31. Source: 44thbombgroup.omeka.net
Link:https://44thbombgroup.omeka.net/files/show/5772

32. Source: slideshare.net
Title: J. Allen Hynek
Link:https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/j-allen-hynek-the-ufo-experience-a-scientific-inquiry-1972/6915084

33. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/bellefontaine52.htm

34. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/davis.htm

35. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/selfridge52.htm

36. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/nowra54mcd.htm

37. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/bentwaters56condon.htm

38. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/tremontonmcdonald.htm

39. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://www.ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/tremontoncondon.htm

40. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/tremontonarticle01.htm

41. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/mcdonaldams.htm

42. Source: ufology.patrickgross.org
Link:https://www.ufology.patrickgross.org/htm/bluebooku66.htm

43. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/bluebooku66.htm

44. Source: ufology.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufology.patrickgross.org/htm/rb47.htm

45. Source: kirkmcd.princeton.edu
Title: mcdonald nicap 67
Link:https://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_nicap_67.pdf

46. Source: spacedoutclassroom.com
Link:https://spacedoutclassroom.com/tag/ufo/

47. Source: nicap.org
Title: BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.nicap.org/bios/WHO-WAS/BLUE_BOOK.htm

48. Source: books.google.com
Link:https://books.google.com/books?id=mDYVAAAAIAAJ

49. Source: reed.dur.ac.uk
Link:https://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ark%2F32150_s19w0323082.xml

50. Source: reed.dur.ac.uk
Link:https://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ark%2F32150_s13197xm06v.xml&toc.id=

51. Source: secondhandsongs.com
Link:https://secondhandsongs.com/label/1879/all

52. Source: ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
Title: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena
Link:https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2012/03/

53. Source: ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
Title: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena
Link:https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2015/02/

54. Source: saturdaynightuforia.com
Link:https://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/index.html

55. Source: daviddarling.info
Link:https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UFOs.html

56. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://www.ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/mcdonaldscdf.htm

57. Source: scribd.com
Title: Condon Report | PDF | Cloud | Sky
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/718800974/Condon-Report

58. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://www.ufologie.patrickgross.org/press/edmontonjournal5jun1967.htm

Additional References

59. Source: youtube.com
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYpjSMdG4b4

Published: August 28, 1967

60. Source: youtube.com
Title: Dr. James E. Mc Donald
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzCQvC0cTKI

Published: September 24, 1968

61. Source: youtube.com
Title: Dr. James E. Mc Donald
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMluqSg-QjA

Published: August 28, 1967

62. Source: youtube.com
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYnXZsuTjIE

Published: September 24, 1968

63. Source: thecoldfile.com
Title: 1956 lakenheath bentwaters
Link:https://www.thecoldfile.com/articles/1956-lakenheath-bentwaters/

64. Source: ncd.gov
Link:https://www.ncd.gov/report/equality-of-opportunity-the-making-of-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/

65. Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380074547_Developing_the_EU-Japan_Strategic_Partnership_An_analysis_of_European_Union_member_states%27_relations_with_Japan

66. Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381699218_Investigating_the_impact_of_temperature_on_growth_rate_of_the_root_rot_fungus_Gymnopus_fusipes

67. Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385040342_Psychedelic_therapy_in_practice_Case_studies_of_self-treatment_individual_therapy_and_group_therapy

68. Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeff-Hopkins-Weise/publication/321722557_Brisbane%27s_50th_Queen%27s_Own_Regiment_Detachments_1866-69_the_Saint_Helena_Penal_Establishment_Military_Guard/links/5d8b3159a6fdcc2554971ad1/Brisbanes-50th-Queens-Own-Regiment-Detachments-1866-69-the-Saint-Helena-Penal-Establishment-Military-Guard.pdf