Campagna, Palmiro 1954-

views updated

CAMPAGNA, Palmiro 1954-

PERSONAL:

Born November 4, 1954, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada; son of Gilbert (a tailor) and Paolina (a homemaker and laborer; maiden name, Cardoni) Campagna; married Jane Elizabeth Maxwell (a teacher of English as a second language and homemaker), October 6, 1990; children: James Gilbert, Adrian Phillip, Katia Marie. Ethnicity: "Italian." Education: University of Guelph, B.Sc., 1977; Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, B.A.Sc., 1981. Hobbies and other interests: Investigative archival research.

ADDRESSES:

Home—Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Office—Department of National Defence, 101 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0K2. E-mail—[email protected].

CAREER:

Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, engineer and internal auditor, 1981—. CFRB-Radio, contributor to the weekly program Strange Days Indeed.

MEMBER:

Professional Engineers of Ontario.

WRITINGS:

Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed, Stoddart Publishing (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), 1992, 3rd edition, 1998.

The UFO Files: The Canadian Connection Exposed, Stoddart Publishing (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), 1997.

Requiem for a Giant: A. V. Roe Canada and the Avro Arrow, Dundurn Press (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), 2003.

Contributor to periodicals, including Engineering Dimensions, CASI Log, UFO, and Airforce.

WORK IN PROGRESS:

Continuing archival research on unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and Avro.

SIDELIGHTS:

Palmiro Campagna told CA: "The Avro Arrow interceptor was a project canceled under peculiar circumstances back in 1959. With almost no explanation, in one afternoon, over 25,000 people were fired. Subsequently, five flying aircraft plus thirty-two others in various stages of assembly were blow-torched into scrap, along with almost all technical data. The company itself, one of the largest in Canada at the time, closed its doors in 1962. A clear explanation was never provided. By 1978, the issue was still so sensitive that a television documentary on the subject was postponed because it was felt that it could have a significant impact on the upcoming Canadian election.

"Prior to the documentary, there was very little written on the subject. Historians included the Arrow saga in their history books and, in 1983, in a military history of Canada, the allegation was made that the Arrow was canceled because it was too costly and suffered from technical flaws. As an engineer myself, I found this difficult to believe. I was aware that many of the top engineers provided a significant boost to the space program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In fact, after cancellation, twenty-five top engineers went there in key positions and helped to put the United States in space and on the moon. Many were awarded medals of merit. How then could these engineers design something that was technically flawed?

"This is what lit the fire under me. I embarked on a quest to discover the truth. I did what no other researcher or historian had done; I approached the United States, specifically the Eisenhower Library. I obtained documents which began shedding new light on the subject. I also proved the historians were incorrect with respect to technical flaws. This was documented in my article in Engineering Dimensions in 1988. In a subsequent issue, historian Desmond Morton blamed the work of a graduate student for having gotten the facts wrong.

"Shortly after this article was published, I began finding more information at the National Archives of Canada. Unlike other researchers, I did not ask for documents on the Arrow, but rather on anything related to the Royal Canadian Air Force and National Defence between 1950 and 1960. I ended up going through a mountain of information and found many answers. I approached the directorate of history at National Defence and found more.

"I was doing the work as a hobby, but friends urged me to prepare a book. I did, when I found the paper trail outlining the reasoning behind the blow-torching of the aircraft and documents. In fact, many documents in the form of memoranda had not been destroyed, and I was able to find carbon copies in the files of other government departments outside National Defence.

"I sent my manuscript to several publishers only to have it returned. It seems I needed an agent. Instead I asked a published author, and one who I knew had an interest in the Arrow, if he would write a foreword for the book. Naturally he asked to see the manuscript. When he read it, he suggested I get it published and advised me I could use him as a reference. Soon afterward I had a publisher for Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed. The book became a Canadian best-seller and went into a third edition before the publisher when bankrupt due to external pressures on the Canadian publishing industry.

"I wrote about the Arrow because it was canceled under mysterious circumstances, but also because I always had an interest in aircraft. From an engineering perspective I could not believe the claims being made by the historians. I noted that they did not list their sources. In my books I list all sources and even reproduce key documents in the appendices.

"I have also had an interest in UFOs since 1966. As it turns out, Avro was building a flying saucer for the American government at the same time it was building the Arrow. In my Arrow research, I uncovered a significant amount on the saucer. With my prior interest in UFOs, I researched this topic in earnest and uncovered numerous documents in the archives. My UFO book covers the history of the phenomena in Canada from the 1900s to the present, using documents from the Department of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the National Research Council, as well as interviews and other sources.

"All my books maintain an objectivity with the intention of allowing the reader to draw his/her own conclusions, though I do offer my opinion. However, I am careful to point out when I am speculating and when I am using the documented record.

"I have not changed my writing. Perhaps to my detriment, I am not given to flowery prose, but rather I stick to the facts. My works are extremely detailed, but I feel I must do this in order to prove the historians and those who would make unfounded, sweeping statements incorrect. I have been successful. Articles written about me have indicated that I have done my homework, whereas the historians have not. My works have created no end of controversy and discussion in historical circles."