Department of the Air Force Committee to Review Project Bluebook, 1966-1967

DEPARTMENT OF THE AlR FORCE AIR FORCE OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (OAR) ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 Attendees - meeting with Dr. James McDonald, Uni.versity of Arizona at the Pentagon 17 April 1967 Lt. Col. Harold A. Steiner, Ass't. Exec. Secre. USAF Scientific Advisory Board, Pentagon, Room SD982 Washingtt>n, D.c. Tele. 697-4648 (Code 11-74648). Col. George Freeman, Chief, Civil Branch, SAFOI-C, Room 4Al20, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. Tele. 697-1128 (Code 11-71128). Col. Marvin Stanley, Chief, Public Information Division, SAFOIP, Room 4C922, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. Tele. 695-5554 (Code 11-55554). H. Philip Hovnanian, Program Engineer, NASA Hq. Room F50016, 400 Maryland Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. Tele. 962-4961 (Code 13-24961). George H. Duncan, Advanced Programs & Technology Manager, NASA Hq. Room 50016, 400 Maryland Ave., s.w. Washington, D.C. Tele. 962-4961 (Code 13-24961). Dt. Dale W. Jenkins, Ass't Director (Science), NASA Hq. Office of Space Science & Applications Room F50078, Washington, D.C. Tele. 962-4621 (Code 13-24621). Hans Dolezalek, Atmospheric Scientist, ONR Branch Office, 495 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Tele. 696-3563 (Code 11-63563). Mr. James Hughes, Head, Atmospheric Science Program, Office of Naval Research, Code 412, Washington, D.C. 20360. Tele. 696-6739 (Code 11-66739). Phillip V. Mitchell, Technical Staff Member, Institute for Defense Analyses, 400 Army-Navy Drive, Arlington, Va. 22202. Tele. 558-1641. Joseph Coates, Senior Staff Member, Institute for Defense Analyses, 400 Army­ Navy Drive, Arlington, Va. 22402. Tele. 558-1653. Lynn E. Catoe, Library o~ Congress, Science & Technology Div., UFO Bibliography Project, Washington, D.c. Tele. 967-8088. Dan Taylor, Staff Information Officer, AFOSR (SRGC) ~rlington, Va. 22209. Tele. 694-4875. (Code 11-44875). Maj. Joseph P. Martino, Ass't. Exec. Dir® Research Communication, AFOSR (SRGC) Arlington, Va. 22209. Tele. 694-4875 (Code 11-44875). Dr. J. Thomas Ratchford, Project Scientist, AFOSR (SRPS) Arlington, Va. 22209. Tele. 694-5588 (Code 11-45588). Maj. William Metscher, Physicist, Hq. OAR (RROSP) Arlington, Va. 22209. Tele. 694-5505 (Code 11-45505). DAN TAYLOR Staff Information Officer NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 2 NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 3 NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 4 I ,,'. - .. ·---· • USAF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY roARD AD HOC COMMI'l'rEE TO REVlEW PROJECT BIDE BOOK Roam 5D-1014, the Pentagon 1400, 19 April 1966 ( MEETING STATISTICS I. 1400 Purpose of Meeting Lt Colonel Steiner, SAB 1410 Discussion .Al.l attendees 1630 Adjourn II. ..............ose and Place: To discuss how best to implement the recommenda­ tions made by the SAB Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project Blue Book~ The discussion was held in Room 5D-1014, the Pentagon. III. Those Present and ose Thereof: Name Affiliation Dr. Brian O'Brien Chairman Consultant Dr. Jesse Orla.nsky Member IDA Col Robert Burger SAB Secretary AFBSA ol Robert Hippler Participant AFRSTA Mrs. Sara Hunt Participant SAFOI L/Col Harold A. Steiner SAB Secretary Hq USAF (AFRSA) Reviewed - Report of the SAB Ad Hoc Conmiittee to Review Project Blue Book, March 1966. I V. Verbatim Record: (see attached) VI. Certification: These meeting statistics are certified as being true and correct. IV. •• reviewed HAROLD A. STEINER, Lt Colonel, USAF 1 Atch Assistant Secretary Record, dated 20 Apr 66 USAF Scientific Advisory Board NW 90306. Docld:34714a41 Page 5 II' i't~i::t-<2;:f:,:L,#•t.•.) .hi':.~;'? i~:.ll·z..i HEADQUARTERS UNITE. , ATES AIR FORCE USAF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE & CHIEF OF STAFF MEMO FOR: Record The following distribution waa made on Memo tor Record, 20 Apr 66, regarding UFO Meeting 1400, 19 April 66, Roca 5D-1014; es made eJ Original--#1-o::f-t:,--~~ #2. ot 6 - ll&iled to Dr. Stever:; #3 ot 6 - sent to Lt Col Hippler, AFRSTA :/14- of 6 - sent to Mrs. Sara Hunt, SA.POI #5 ot 6 - circulated vithin • c~ , ~--~ m.Jm NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 6 USAF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY EOARD AD HOC C{Ht{I'ITEE TO REVJEW PROJECT BWE BOOK HQ FTD, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OHIO 3 FEBRUARY 1966 MEETING STATISTICS I. ~: (see attached) II. se and Place: To review the resources, methods and findings of Air Force Project Blue Book and to advise the Air Force as to any improvements that should be made in the program to carry out the Air Force 's responsibility. Briefings held in Commanders Conference room at Hq, FI'D. Discussions and review of case files held in Project Blue Book office. III. Those Present and se Thereof: Name ~ Affiliation Dr. Brian O'Brien Dr. IB.unor F. Carter Dr. Jesse Orlanaky Dr. Richard Porter Dr. Carl Sagan Dr. Willis H. Ware Col John P. Spaul.ding Dr. Anthony Cacioppo Col Warren Wheeler Maj Hector Quintanella. Mr. Francis Arcier Col Florian Holm L/Col Harold A. Steiner Chairman Member Member Member Member Member Briefer Participant Participant Briefer Participant Briefer SAB Sec Consultant System Development Corp. IDA GE Company Smithsonian Astrophysical. Observatory Rand Corporation S.AFOI Fl'D FTD FTD Consultant to FTD F'I'D Hq USAF (AFBSA) IT. Re orts Contributions Pro osala etc. issued received reviewed, a!)Rroved,2 ;12re12 ed or disseminated durins the EroceedinS: Reviewed: Robertson Report, dated 17 January 1953 Selected case histories from Project mue Book Distributed: Compilation of Project Blue Book Methods and Case Histories, dated 3 February l V. Verbatim. Record: None VI. Certification: These meeting statistics are certified as being true and correct. RABOLD A. S , Lt Col, USAF Assistant Secretary NW 90306 ... _1ent1f'1o Advisory Board Doclrl:3471484iTage 7 NER, .. ....,' AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS AGENDA • ,.;J1ursday, 3 FeJ?ruary 1966 0800 Welcoming Remarks 0805 Introduction 0810 The Air Force Problem 0830 Briefing on Project Blue Book 1000 Break 1015 Review of Selected Case Histories 1145 Lunch 1315 Executive and Writing Session Lt Colonel, USAF Assistant Executive Secretary USAF Scientific Advisory Board 8 NW90306, Dodd:3471.uJ41 ~'age 8 (UFOs) Commander or Vice Commander, FTD Dr. O'Brien, SAB Lt Col Spaulding, SAFOI Major Quintanilla, FI'D FTD Staff 22 December 1965 Obairman--- .. _ _...,,, ~r Otfioinl th:;e Only MEK> FOR RECORD 20 April 1966 SUBJECT: Implementing SAB Ad Hoc Coan:lttee on Project Blue• Book Recommendations 1. The following personnel met at 1400 on 19 April in Room 5D-l0l4 to discuss how best to 1.mplement the recommendations made by the SAB Ad Hoc Committee to review ProJect Blue Book. Dr. Brian O'Brien Colcael Robert Burger, AFBSA. •· Dr. Jesse Orlansky Lt Col Harold Steiner, AFB&\ Lt Col Robert Hippler, AFR'l'SA M:ra. Bara Hunt, SAroI 2. On 5 April , Secretary ot the Air Force Harold Brown, 1n a .. memorandum. to the Chief of Staff, stated that the Committee's .. recamnendationa should be accepted and arrangements me.de tor a (sic) scientific team to investigate 1n depth· certain selected sightings of UFOs. General Ferguson was given responsibility for implementing the Committee's recommendations and Lt Colonel Hippler is project otticer. 3. Although the Committee's recommendation was clear and succinct, initially there was no unanimous agreement on how to put this recommendation into effect. A basic question is: (1) Should the contract be vith a university or should it be with individual• connected with a 1.Dliveraity1 A great deal of . the meeting was taken up discussing these facets of the problem end a clear anner did not evolve. Therefore, it is probable that I, and perhaps some selected members of the Canm1.ttee1uy be asked to meet with Colonel Hippler again. 4. Gener~, the concept of using uni'VersitteE(or individuals tran universities) is good. Specifically, however, :there needs to be a lead university to coordinate and collate the investigations. After some discussion, it was B\J88e&ted that the University of Da.yton is probably .most appropriate because it is located close to Hq FTD who will retain management ot Project Blue Book. 'Other universities were suggested that could provide personnel to give areal coverage ot com.JS. They are liated below. East West South Rensselaer, Tro7, lf.Y. Utah Vanderbilt .. Columbia Colorado Duke -­ NYU Iowa Univ of Florida Univ ot Conn. Wisconsin Georgia Tech Yale Illinois U:liv of Georgia Cornell Chicago ll\1v of Dayton univ of Calif (Berkeley) Carnegie Tech UCLA Oregon .,..votary WashiDgton ~bnioalDir Rice ~sst. Seoreta lbiv ot Texas ~st. S@oreta ~st. se'creta Colr.Y'11r ot Copies -Asst. $earet , . .......-~ NW 90306" »-•r ~tioial Use Only Ac:ttsrili/A'sst.-----L....._,-·-·_,___ Doclrl:3471.ffl41 Page 9 .For Official U::a:i Onlv Colonel Hippler pointed out that it will probably be September before he gets the money to implement this plan. Dr. Orlsnsky pointed out that because of the summer holiday, Colonel Hippler should make contact with the Wliversities before the end of May. t· 5. Since we are dealing with an emotional phenomenon, there was some ,t discussion about whether universities (i.e., their presidents) would be willing to get involved with UFOs. Dr. O'Brien suggested that Dr. Stever; as President of Carnegie Tech, might send letters to a fev selected university presidents with whom. he is acquainted to get some idea of their feelings on this matter. (ACTION: AFBSA). In this way we can leam what a typical reaction might be and also some of the pitfalls to avoid when contacting other universities. 6. 1here are still several unanswered questions or problem areas: (a) Since the problem is 99fo public relations,it is essential that the investigating teams have aom.e modicm ot skill 1n press relations. It was stl"OJlgl)" suggested that a good solid PIO type (perhaps incognito) be included on, the first few investigation. te811l8. 'Dlis caused quit~ a, bit ot discussion and a final answer did not evolve. • (b) The objective is to have impartial scientists from schools vith good reputations that have never been involved with UFOs. (c) Considerable thought must be given to how the contract or contracts are to be written. (d) In order to utilize their talents to the best advantage, it'was proposed and accepted that Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Dr. Donald Menzel form the nucleus of a Consultant-Advisor team to work with Hq Fl'D in determining which sightings the university team should investigate. (e} When teams are selected, it is strongly recommended that they be brought together at sane certain location such as Hq F'1'D and given a thorough briefing on what is expected of them. This briefing should cover allot the intangibles and pitfalls that must be avoided in order to give good Air Force public relations. (f) Another que,ation that was not :tully resolved is how AFSC shou1d get into the act. ihe Committee'• original thought was that someone from the nearest AFSC base should work with the investigating team. The Committee also recODDended that a member ot the OSI might work with the university teaaa and giTe them the benetit ot their investigating experience. It waa queationed whether thie would help or hurt. the Air l'orce ettort. leither ot these questions were tul.17 reaolve4. 2 Jtor Otticial Use Onl,. NW 90306" Docld:347148-41 Page 10 (g} It was pointed out that the National Research Council had conducted an exercise in Disaster Research which had involved sane investigating teams similar to the ones we are discussing. Although the committee is now defunct, Mrs. MarJorie Wilson, Government Code 1224 - 23 239 has their reports and will be glad to let us review them. ' ... ·•· ·• I '\, ~- Asaietant Secretary ' - 1' ,,,., I V .. USAr Scienti.tic Advisory Board .. ., ' \' • Lt Col, UBAJ' ,, 3 l'tr Otticial Use Onlv NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 11 ,,-;w~·~;;tlSIM.~•~,,,·,"'i-;;;•n•;_..r,, MEMO IOUl'INS SUP ;'XJNJUilll.:INt'ES Oil ! i __.:..1':....,_..._,:_1_:~---~·~-....,..__._J.r,,._-; _____ _....•,...., __.,__1 _____""t,,,,v1)1.1'-...~. 1 TO I ,am&u ~iK~!J\U •~-----------•-..- ....,,_~~••--------•••••I :i...-.,•-•---!i.-1•""'-•;i-,_,,®,~•-c,••<I,,__,,,-.,,___,;_,. c I t s·--~1• ,~-. nt.a t t •' ,• /, REIIARD FROM AFRDQ-P (Mr. Baillie) FORM 1 OCT SO a-... DD FOftD i4. 1 Feb IIO ud DD Fcna 86, *GPO: tSl60--0--6IIZM l Piib 60 wbioh will be lad UDtilabauaed. NW 90306, Docld:34714841 Page 12 - COPY AFRDQ-P 31 July 1967 Special Report of the USAF Scientific Advisory Boa.rd Ad Hoo Committee to Review Project "Blue Book,, USAIRA (DATT - Mr. David Smith & Mr. Peer DeSilva) American Embassy APO San Franoisco 96346 Copies of the subject report are forwarded at the request of Mr. Jesse Orlanaky, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board Committee on UFO's. FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF onel, ief, Requirements Plans Group Operational Requirements & Development Plans, USAF l Atch Special Report of the USAF SABAd Hoc COIL~ DCS &D mittee to Review Project "Blue Book" dtd Mar 66, 2 cys COPY . ,... NW90306 Docld:34714841 Page 13 MBl«>RANDUMFORRICORD 18 May 1966 SUBJECT: Conversation with Dr. Stever Concerning SAB Support to USAF Investigations ot UFOs l. On 17 May I discussed BAB support to USAF investigation• of UFOs with Dr. Stever. In a previous l,et't~er ldated 21 April we bad aaked. Dr. Stever to informally query s0111e of hie univeraity-preaident colleagues to determ:l.ne the beet m.odua operandi tor approaching universities and aaking thell to provide people and reaourcea to investigate acientiticalq selected UFO aiptings aa recaamencied by the ~ Ad Hoc Conlllittee. 1bia Jl8IIO docUMD.ta hi• tindinga and conclusions on this matter. a. On the baaia ot his infomal. contacta.:with univeraity preaidenta, Dr. Stever believe• the Air Force will get mixed reaction• to ita ret.Mat to univera1tiea4!1 on the~ aide ot the picture, he baa gleaned theae general reactions: a. It my be againat acae school's policy to make contractual arrangements 'With the government. b. Solle aivera1t1•• will bave no interest or have any qualified inveatigatora. 3. en the 2,2■1t,1ve side, the toll.owing reactions were received: a. Some univeraitiea will do the Job lmder con.tract. b. Solle would like to do the Job troll a reaearch aspect. (lfOTB: Dr. Stever c01111M1Dted that thia 'M:3 be the ••toot in the door" approach to requeat a4d1ticmal research fund• tor vork at the lmiveraity that my be conatrue4 to be related to the U10 inveatigation.) , 4. Dr. SteTer belieYe■ that, aa a vbole, the mller universities vill be :more receptive tban the l&rger onea. 5. Dr. Stever baa had a011e secoa.4 thoushta 011 the SAB (specifically, him) aend1ng the initial letter• to the •elected universities. He believes that the lett'i'r'"'iliould cme frail and be aigned b7 an action office within the Air Force. nie letter aight reter to the recaaendations ot the SAB scientific r.aajttee aa a baa1a tor the Air Force action• to initiate a more scientific al)prO&eh ill tuture ■elected UFO in.Veatigaticna. In other vorda, instead ot a letter f'roll a college president to a college president, Dr. Stever felt the .Air Force could aak.e a very acceptable case if it framed ita letter around these two pointa, a. 'Jhe value ot participating in auch 1Dveat1gations to the school, and b. !he va1ue to the Air Force and the nation. NW 90306" Docld:341'1.ffl41 Page 15 6. D.r. Stever stated that he would be happy to rniw and critique the draft letter from a miveraity preaiden.t'• viewpoint. 7. Dr. Stever also suggested that OSR could probably advise vhich universities are most ljkely to cooperate and since aoat tmivera1tiea have bad dealings w1th OSR, J)erhap• that organisation could otter 801le advi•• on the initial letter and Jl&1be ffen send the letter f:rolll that otti • BOBBR'l Copies to: Lt Col Hippler, .lFR8'1' Secretary Mra. Bunt, SA.rOI USAf Sc1ent1t1c Adviaory Board Dr. Brian O'Brien 2 NW 90306, Docld:347'14841 Page 16 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FOR-.:...:. WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Attached is a copy of the Special Report of the SAB Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project "Blue Book." I believe that the Committee's recommendations should be accepted and arrangements made to contract for a scientific team to investigate in depth certa.in selected reported sightings of UFO's. If·you concur> General LeBailly can work with General Ferguson and AFSC in making the arrangements. Harold Brown Attachment f l ,,..._...............,.., .."'"'"_,_,.....,, .... ...., ......, " , l DEPAR~· 1';MT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR STAFF ' •MARY SHEET ACTION s tGNAT UFUi (Surname and Grade) TO ACTION SIGNATURE (Surname and Grede) AFRDC 2 7 3 1-----------------t 8 4 9 5 1--------------110 SURNAME OF ACTION OFFICER ANO GRAOlt SYMBOL PHONE TYPIST'S INIT, SUSPENSE DATE Lt Colonel Steiner AFBSA 78845 mjm SUBJECT OATS: SAB Ad Hoc Committee Report 30 March 1966 SUMMA"'Y 1. Attached for your signature 1s a letter transmitting to General LeBailly the Special Report of the SAB Ad Hoc COIEittee to Review Project Blue Book. 2. The Comittee was formed and the report is being submitted in response to General LeBailly's memorandum to you on 28 September 1965 (Atch 2) requesting that the SAB review Air Force Project Blue Book. The objective of this investigation was to determine if and how the Air Force could improve its program for investigating UFO's. The Carmittee concluded that the program can be improved by conducting a more thorough scientific investigation of questionabJ.e sightings, and recommended a method for doing this. 3. Recommended distribution 1s: SAFOI AFRDC Coanittee Members Commander, FTD AFSC DCS/Foreign Technology SAB Secretariat Chairman, SAB Number of 25 l leach 5 2 2 1 4. After your signature and approval of the recommended distribution, we will opriate action to forward the copies ot the report. ROBERT J. BURGER, Colonel, USAF Secretary USAF Scientific Advisory Board 2 Atch 1. Ltr of Transmittal 2. SAFOI Memo, 28 Sep 65 0 AFHQ JARR~2 50 PREVIOUS EDIT! ONS OF THI s FORM ARE OBSOLETE. ~w 9030fi I Docld:34714841 Page 19 l NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 20 2 3 s TO Gen F Mil ACTION DEPARl NT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR STAFF ! 'MRY SHEET SIGNATURE (Surname and Grade) TO ACTION SIGNATUAE (Surname and Grade) 6 7 8 9 10 SURNAME OF ACTION OFFICER AND GRADE SYMBOL. PHONE TYPIST•s INIT. SUSPENSE DA TE Col Burger AFBSA 74811 al SUl'lJliCT DATE SAB Information/Action Item 5 October 1965 SUMMAPl Y 1. This request arrived in our office today apparently without your seeing it. 2. I discussed it briefly with Dr. Stever and his initial reaction was lukewarm. He questioned the value of a review of the UFO pro­ gram by the SAB. He suggested that we might talk to some other SAB members knowledgeable in this area to get their opinion on the value of such an SAB undertaking. We thought of Brian O'Brien (FTD/DAG), Jesse Orlansky (Psychology), Dick Porter (Geophysics), and possibly Court Perkins and Dr. Markey. 3. Before we do this, however, Dr. Stever thought we should get your views on this to see if perhaps there is some additional information or facts which would give a clue on why the request ade. ROBERT . BUR Colonel, USAF Secretary USAF Scientific Advisory Board ., Atch Memo on UFOs AFHQ ::RR~2 50 PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THI s FORM ARE OBSOLETE. NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 21 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR" FORCE WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR MILITARY DIREGI'OR; SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD SUBJE~: Unid.entified Flying Objects (UFOs) In keeping with its air defense role, the Air Force has the responsibility for the investigation of unid.entif'ied :flying objects reported over the United States. The name of this project i.s Blue Book (Attachment 1). Procedures for conducting this program are established by Air Force Regulation 200-2 (Atta.cl'n:nent 2)~ The Air Force bas conducted Project Blue Book since 1948. As of 30 June 1965, a total of 9267 reports had been investigated by the Air .Force. Of these 9267 reports, 663 cannot be explained. It has been determined by the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff'/ Plans and Operations that Project Blue Book is a worthwhile program which deserves the support of all staff agencies and major command.s and that the Air Force should continue to invest;igate and analyze all UFO reports in order to assure that such objects do not present a threat to our national security. The Assistant Deputy Chie:f of' Stajrf/Plans and. Operations has determined also that the Foreign Technology Division (FrD) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base should continue to exercise its presently assigned responsibilities concern­ ing UFOs. To date, the Air Force has found no evidence that any of the UFO reports re:flect a threat to our national security. However, many of the reports that cannot be explained have come from intelli­ gent a.nd technically well qualified individuals whose integrity can­ not be doubted. In addition, the reports received officially by the Air Force includ.e only a fraction of the spectacular reports which are publicized by many private UFO organizations. Accordingly, it is requested that a working scientific panel composed of both physical and social scientists be organized to review Project Blue Book -- its resources, methods, and findings -­ and to advise the A:i.r Force as to any improvements that should be made in the program in order to carry out the Air Force's assigned responsibility. 5 NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 22 I Doctor J. Allen Hynek who is the Chairman of the Dearborn Observatory at Northwestern University is the scientific consultant to Project Blue Book. He has indicated a willingness to work with such a panel in order to place this problem in its proper perspec­ tive. Doctor Hynek has discussed ·this problem with Doc·tor Winston R. Markey, the former Air Force Chief Scientist.. t f,,,." :,'I' /_ /'' / / .....•• .Qt..(..._(_,~-- . ...._,...,., E. B. LeBAILLY Major General, USAF Director of Information 2 Attacbments 1. Blue Book Report 2. AFR 200-2 6 / NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 23 ·1· N. S, '1·· I r·1 •• .l 1· ··1~ 1·-? F () R. . l,_ . .. ...J (i( ·i l I.;; 1d rei hnu!(,gy l)iviswn I ---- February 13, 1969 Lt. Colonel Harold A. Steiner, USAF Assistant Executive Secretary USAF Scientific Advisory Board Department of the Air Force Headquarters United States Air Force Washington, D.C. 20330 Dear Hal, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in sending me a copy of the Condon Report on UFO's. He and his group seem to have done a tremendous job, just about what our committee thought was needed. I guess we were very lucky to have reviewed the situation in such timely fashion in 1966. The fine endorsement of his work by the National Academy of Sciences confirms that Condon has done what was needed. It is a pleasure to see this fruitful outcome to our recom­ mendation and I appreciate having the report. NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 24 < \ "' SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION I fA~ ----­ 2500 Colorado Avenue· Santa Monica, California 90406 February 28, 1969 Lt. Colonel Harold A. Steiner USAF Scientific Advisory Board Headquarters U.S. Air Force Washington, D. C. 20330 Dear Colonel Steiner: Thank you very much for sending me the Condon Report and the National Academy of Sciences review of the report. I have not yet had time to read the com­ plete report but have glanced through it, and it 1 certainly seems comprehensive® I1he National Academy review certainly gives it good credibility and ought to take care of any serious critici.sm. Cordially yours, c--··--~.. '-.,, ;''. ·,... \. c·a:~~~r • N"•····~:·. Vice President and Manager Public Systems Division LFC:db NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 25 I I 20330 l2 February l ' I Dr• B. (Juytord stner President cameg1e-Mellon University Pittaburgh, Pennaylvania 15213 Dear Dr. steYer I a pleaaed to aelld you thia ,eraoul copy ot the Condon R-:port on Un.1dent1t1ed Flying Ob.1ectai!I Ho doubt you will be surprised, aa I was, at the depth ot the 1lUYfflit7 of Colon.do •tu.dT• Little could v• au••• when the O'Brien SAB Caaittee aet in February tbat it would aerre a• a aprincboe.rd tor this volalnou.a ettort. hr•ozua.111', I am aat1atied vith 'me result• ot the atudy and bellwe it p.ita the Air Force 1n an excellent po11t1on to counter cr1t1c1•• Sincerel.7 B'.AROU> A. S'l'IIDR, Lt Colonel, USAF l Atch Aaa1atant Executive Secretary Condon fteport (3 Yola) USAF Scien·tific M:fiaory Board LtCol Ste1ner/dd/l2reb NW 90306" Docld:3471.ffl41 Page 26 20330 6 February 1969 Dr. Brian O'Brien Consultina Phyaicist Box 52 North Woodstock, Connecticut 06257 Dear Dr. O'Brien I• pleaaed to aend you tbia peraonal copy ot the Condon Report on Unidentified 11.Jin& ObJecta. No doubt JOU will be aurpriaed, as I vu, at the depth ot the UD1veraity of Colorado atud7. Little could we awt•• when we 11et u a C011111ttM 1A l'ebruuy 1 tll&t a b7-product would be the•• vollainoua doctaenta. Peraonally, I am aatistied vith the oontent.a and beline the Air Force got ita money•• worth. I em h&PP7 to have aerfed with JOU 1n th.11 exercise and I hope that you feel aa I do that it was vorthwhile. Sincerel7 BAB:>U> A. STBIDR, Lt Colonel, USA1 l Atch Aaaiatant Executive Secret&r'7 Condon Report (3 Vola) USAF Scientific AdY1aory Board SAMI LE'l'TRR ro: Dr. Launor F. Carter Mr. Jesse Orlansky Dr. Richard Porter Dr. Carl Bagan Dr. Willis H. Ware NW 90306, Docld:34714841 Page 27 20330 AFBSA 27 February 1968 Requeat for Project Blue Book Material Mr. Don Berliner National Inveatigations C011mittee on Aeria1 Phenomena 1536 Connecticut Av11m.1e, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Thia ia in reaponae to your visit on 26 February 1968 during which you requeated we provide you with Project Blue Book material. I have been adv:L•ed that we can provide you with copiea of the material you requ•ted at a coat of $5.00. If you are still intereated in obtain copiea, plea•• mak,e your check or ·money order for that amount payable to the "Treuurer of the United Statea" and aeod it to thia off:tce. HAR.OLD A•. gfEINER.• I.t Colonel, USAF Aaaiatan.t Executlve Secretary USAF Scientific Advi•ory Board NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 28 20''30 J l March 196B AFB& ProJec·t Blue Book Mat,erial Mr. Don Berliner Natianal Investigations Committee oo Aer:tal Phenomena, 1536 Com1ecticut Avenue, NW WBshington, D. C. 20036 l. This is in response to your letter of 28 February 1968 requesting an.d payi.ng tor material pre1•red for the USAF 1 Scientif'ic Advis~ry Board by tb.e Project Blue Book office. 2.. Copies of thie mterial are attached. A fee of $5 was based on the unit cost of 25¢, per page plus $3 per hour labor. HAROLD A. STEINER, Lt Colonel, USAF 1 Ateh Assistan·t Executive Secretary Project Blue Book Material USAF Scientific Advisory Boe.rd f '"' ( 7 ... """'" "" ;".,/ NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 29 NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE ON AERIAL PHENOMENA MAJOR DONALD E. KEYHOI:. WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036 ADMINIST"ATIVIE Ol"l"ICIIS: USMC (IUET.) DIRll'CTOft UJ:Se CONNltCTICUT AVE., N.W. GORDON I. Pl. LORE. JR. AS91STANT DIIUiCTOR Feb. 28, 1968 Tl:Ll:..HONI:: (202) ee7-9434 Lt. Col. Harold A. Steiner Aasiatar1t Executive Secretary USAF Scientific Advis•ry Board HQ, USAF Washington, D.C. 20;;0 Deer Col. Steiners Encleaed is my peraer1el check for $5.00 to cever the oost of reproducing th~ pegea of Preject Blue B•ok materiel which we discu&a$d •n Feb. 26. Many thanks f•r your Clle>pere ti•n• Den Bsrliner NICAP Staff NW 90306" Dodd:34714S41 Page 30 ,. 20330 AFDAS SSgt Ehrlich/74835 Request for Project Bluebook Roporta 20 reb 68 Mr. Don Berliner . National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena 1536 Connecticut Avenue Washington, DC 200)6 l. Reference your request directed to SAF-OICO tor portions of Project Bluebook Reports. 2. We maintain a reference oow or the material 7ou requested and oan furnish you photographic copy at a ooat ot $12. • It 7ou are inter­ ested in purchasing a copy, please make 7our check or money order to thie office. payable to "Trea . .,uz~:r ot the United State•" and NID1t Chief', Information Branch Directorate ot .ldminietrati'Ye Servioda ...,~ '~·i, ".I'......,....: '""'· .-. ''"••"" • .~.•-.k NW 90306" [)ocld:34714841 Page 31 1 N S'I~I'I~lJ'T'E July 27, 1967 Mr. Chester N. Hasert Acting Executive Secretary USAF Scientific Advisory Board Room 5Dl014, The Pentagon Washington, D. c. Dear Chet: When I was in Thailand last week, I spoke to several men at the U.S. Embassy who told me about an interesting problem that faces them. Very simply, the Thai government has made numerous reports of mysterious helicopter flights in the North­ east part of the country near Laos, an area in which Communist terrorists have been increasing their activity. Although the members of the U.S. Embassy take these reports very seriously, they have never been able to authenticate a single valid sight­ ing. I would not have given this matter any further thought except that someone said the reports of these sightings were very much like the reports of UFOTs meaning, thereby, that one unusual report is likely to inspire additional ones. It seemed to me that the SAB report on UFO's might be useful to these men in the sense that it would provide them with a basis for seeing that a more valid understanding of the problem could require a more thorough examination than has been possible up to now. It is with this suggestion in mind that I hope you will be able to send a copy of the report to two men in the Embassy very much concerned with this matter. They are Peer de Silva and David Smith. Mr. de Silva is Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Mr. Smith is Special Assistant to the Ambassador. I hope that it will be possible for our Embassy in Thailand to take advantage of the work done by the SAB committee chaired by Brian O'Brian. JO:rnh cc: Dr. H. Guyford Stever NW 90306" Doclrl:34714841 Page 31 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 16 May 1967 SUBJECT: Some Notes Concerning a Progress Report on University of Colorado UFO Study 1. On 5 May 1967, members of the University of Colorado UFO Investigat:i.ng Committee presented a ttposition paper" on the state of their thinking on the UFO Study. This memo is based on verbatim notes taken at that meeting and augments the formal presentation (Atch 1). A report of the Committee's progress up to 31 March is also included (Atch 2). 2. The meeting was held in Dr. Bill Price's office at OSR. The following personnel attended: Dr. Edward V. Condon, Univ of Colorado (uoc), Principal Investigator Mr. Robert J. Low, UOC, Project Coordinator Dr. W. K. Hartman, Univ of Arizona, a member of the UOC Study Committee Dr. William Price, OSR Dr. Tom Ratchford, OSR Dr. Jesse Orlansky, SAB Dr. Willis Ware, SAB Mr. Chester N. Hasert, SAB Lt Col Harold A. Steiner, SAB Lt Col Robert Hippler, AFRSTA Mr. Charles K. Reed, Nat Acad of Sciences Mr. L. V. Brasher, OSR Procurement Mr. Dan Taylor, OSR Public Information 3. The basic problem conf'ronting the UOC Study Connnittee is establishing a methodology for investigating UFOs. In the Committee's opinion, previous investigations have produced few, if any, studies have rimaril been concerned with investi ati According to the UOC Con:nnittee, the se but how to interpret the data obtained from reports that are generated from sightings. Thus, additional sightings as currently handled by Project Blue Book (NOTE: no criticism of Project Blue Book was inferred) will not give the Committee a better picture of what UFOs really are. Something else is needed. 4. Admittedly, if better data were available (i.e., those obtained with spectrometers, magnetometers, etc.) they could undoubtedly give the Com­ mittee a better insight into the UFO problem, but in the 18 months allotted for the study the probability of the UOC Committee getting s ificant better data is small. The possibility of getting actual, real-time data with spectrometers, magnetometers, etc., is highly unlikely. Ergo, the concept of having specialized, instrumented teams standing ready to move quickly into an area where UFOs were or are being sighted and obtain actual, real-time data does not appear likely to produce much. To tangible results because these is not the sighting per NW90306 Docld:347'14841 Page 33 substantiate this conclusion, the UOC Committee cites the experience of NICAP teams of "eager amateursn armed with cameras, magnetometers, and other specialized instrumentation who have gone instantly to sighting zones and attempted to obtain actual data. Despite their zeal, these teams apparently have never been able to obtain .a.ctu~lz. real-time data. The conclusion, therefore, is that the UOC Committee will have to work with data that are available (i.e., reports from those who have sighted UFOs) and attempt to interpret those data so as to obtain a better under­ standing of UFOs. 5. Although the UOC Committee will deal primarily with data from reports, this will not preclude some team investigations of current sightings of special interest. Primary and back-up teams each consisting of two members (a physical scientist and a social scientist) are now being equipped with suitable instruments (i.e., Gieger counters, binoculars, cameras, maps, almanacs, etc.). 'lllese teams will be on stand-by alert at Colorado to investigate sightings of special interest. One unresolved question is how to determine which sightings to investigate. These teams will not be decentralized because the transportation from Denver to any part of the United States is adequate. After listening to this briefing, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the actual field investigations will be low priority items and will be played in low key during this investigation. 6. Discussion on the teams' activities led to another question basic to the Air Force approach to the UFO problem and one that the UOC Committee hopes to provide answers to--is a large field organization composed of an investigating officer at each Air Force base worthwhile? If such a system does not produce worthwhile, tangible results then the Air Force does not need it. If such a system does produce results then perhaps the Air Force needs to refine its reporting and investigating procedures, i.e., Project Blue Book and AFR 80-17. The Connnittee has developed an improved reporting form in consultation with psychologists to be used to obtain d.ata from future sightings. Project Blue Book might find this useful. 7. Some interesting aspects of the UOC Committee's approach to the inves­ tigation are: a . .An attempt will be made to establish reliability of the reports and/or reporters. UOC wants to know how many are reliable, how many are accurate. b. The Committee will assume some hypothesis that UFOs may e.xist. They will then try to d~termine how much evidence s'liorts the probabilitl or i robabilit of this othesis. Thus far the best hypothesis that UFOs exist appears to be the one proposed by Mr. Richard Hall, Deputy Director of NICAP. His is an active hypothesis whereas McDonald's is passive. According to the Committee, Hall definitely believes UFOs exist and are extra-terrestrial solid ob·ects. McDonald also believes they exist and are of extra-terrestrial origin but arrives at his conclusion 2 NW 90306" Docld:34714S41 Page 34 nby remainderu after eliminating all other possibilities of terrestrial and divine origin and leav:irg extra-terrestrial as the only alternative. At this time, the UOC Committee apparently favors the Hall hypothesis. c. Data from sightings are being put on punch cards. The coding system can be expanded up to 50 cards per sighting. All reports of sightings after 1 January 1967 are being computerized. For cases prior to 1967, the Committee asked NICAP to pick out cases they believe should be included in the computer analysis part of the investigation. When questioned as to why NICAP was solicited as a source, the Committee stated that if their report is to have any credibility then NICAP would ha.veto be involved in one form or another. I am 1.nclined to agree with their viewpoint. 8. There will be 21 senior scientists associated with the UOC project. 9. In my opinion, one of the most interesting and potentially beneficial facets of the Committee's investigations is the sub-contracts with various agencies and individuals (i.e., SRI, Ford, RAND, NCAR, etc.) to study such phenomena as illumination, visual perception, fireballs, radiochemistry, ball lightning, etc., as they apply to UFOs. 10. CONCLUSIONS: After listening to the UOC briefing and discussing the matter informally with others, I do not believe the SAB Ad Hoc Committee should pursue this matter further at this time. The UOC Committee seems to have a fairly good grasp of the problem, and I do not see what useful purpose the SAB Committee can serve. Later in the calendar year after the UOC Committee has gained experience and analyzed some data, it might be useful for us to convene at Boulder for a series of formal briefings on the results and scope of the investigation. I can see a useful purpose for such a meeting. Since in a sense the UOC Committee is a brainchild of the SAB, the SAB Ad Hoc Committee could review the UOC Committee's progress and serve as a useful ndevil's advocate" or sounding board to help estab­ lish credibility. The SAB could also suggest new directions where warranted. This type of SAB action would, of course, have to be done with the sanction of Dr. Stever, OSR, and Dr. Condon. Assistant USAF Scient cutive Secretary ic Advisory Board 1. Comments by UOC Committee Lt Colonel, USAF 2 Atch 2. Progress Report 3 NW 90306" Docld:.34714841 Page 35 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 10 August 1966 SUBJECT: Visit by Mr. William P. Wietzel, NICAP 1. Today I was visited by Mr. William Wietzel, an investigator for the National Investigating Cormnittee on Aerial Phenomena. Mr. Wietzel did not have an appointment but just dropped in, presuma.bly to discuss the in April 1966. report of the SAB Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project "Blue ok." This we did; however, the discussion soon deteriorated to an ind nt of the way in which Major Quintella had handled the Ravenna, Ohio, 0 siting With regard to this particular siting, the main criticism of Major Q;uintella seems to be that his interviews with the people who had sited the UFO were restricted to about three mi.nutes each via the telephone. However, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that Major Quintella did visit the scene of the Ravenna siting at a later date. 2. I neither concurred with Mr. Wietzel's opinion of Major Quintella nor d.id I defend Major Quintella strongly. I did point out that, hopefully, the university teams now being formed will provide scientific information that can eliminate the type of personality conflict that apparently exists between NICAP and Major Quintella. 3. There was some additional discussion of the pertinent information con­ cerning the Ravenna siting of which Mr. Wietzel was a principal NICAP investigator. He has completed a lengthy and voluminous report of this siting that is impressive in size if not in content. I asked Mr. Wietzel if NICA.P investigated every UFO siting as thoroughly as they had apparently investigated this one. The obvious answer was no because NICAP has limited resources. I then pointed out that the Air Force also has limited resources and cannot spend as much time on each UFO siting as it would like. We parted amiably at an impasse. He did not convince me, and I certainly did not convince him. HARO A. STEINER, Lt Colonel, USAF Assistant Secretary USAF Scientific Advisory Board NW 90306" Docld:.34714841 Page 36 .... DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. REPLY TO 2 ATTN OF: 1 January 1966 suaJEcr: Some SAFOI Thoughts for the SAB Ad Hoc Connnittee on UFOs TO: RECORD 1. On 21 January, I visited SAF0I and discussed the Air Force's concern over the UF0 preblem with Lt Col John P. Spaulding and Mrs. Sarah Hunt (4a 120 - 79079). 2. SAFOI gets many inquiries concerning the UFG problem. Last year they received and answered more than 3300 letters on UFOs including many from the President and the Congress. The problem essentially boils down to ene that is typified by the questien, "When did yau stop beating your wife?" Any answer the Air Force gives tends to incriminate the Air Force as a concealer of information and at the very least detracts from its image. SAFOI has to cope with this public relations problem and wants som~thing done about it. Therefore they have turned to the SAB. 3. The last time that a group of scientists looked into the scientific aspects of the UFO problem was in 1953. Attachment 1 is a copy of that report. 4. Basically the question is this--is there any such thing as a UFO? When the Air Force receives information on a UFO sighting they have several options open to them. First, they can categorically deny that there is anything such as a UFO. Second, they can cast reflections on the sighters mental ability or claim that he is trying to perpetrate a hoax on the country. Third, they can investigate the si ting as well as possible with their limited resources (3 men at FTD) and admit that the AF is looki.ng into the matter. Obviously, options one and two offer no solution. Thus, SAFOI has to rely on option three, and go through the normal si ting in­ vestigation (Attachment 2) that leads to admissions that there are a certain percentage of UFO sightings that the Air Force cannot identify. This a ke le like Fuller see Saturda Review ar ion and the AF has no rejoiner. Undtrwn'te Your Country's t - B~y U.S. Savings Botzds NW 90306, Doclrl:34714841 Page 41 . .. NW 90306, Docld:347"14841 5. SAFOI wants some pr igious scientific group to look at the UFO problem i.n de th and come up with a position that will help get the Air Force off the hook. SAFOI expects to gain a report that will permit them to stand before the most re own critics and say that the AF position on UFOs is sound or action is being taken to make it sound. 6. The questions that SAFOI wants answered are typically as follows: a. Is Project Blue Book adequate? b. Is there or is there not scientific evidence that UFOs exist? c. What can be done to make the Air Force position credible? 7. SAFOI claims, and rightly so, that they cannot get to the heart of the public relations problem until they get some scientific evidence upon which to base their opinion. For this reason they are very emphatic that they do not want a "for motherhood and against sin" type of connnittee report. AB far as SAFOI is concerned the problem is critical. 8. As evidenced by the Fuller article in the Saturday Review (which is a prestigious news media that is read by highly influential people both in and out of government), the level of criticism of the Air Force is getting on a higher and higher plane. The recent Wall Street Journal article is another ex­ ample of Air Force criticism appearing in a high-class news media. SAFOI clearly defined the criticality of the problem when they concluded by saying that none of the current Air Force problems, such as sonic boom, supersonic transport, and integration, etc., have created the poor public image for the Air Force that the UFO problem does. HAROLD A. STEINER, Major, USAF Assistant Secretary USAF Scientific Advisory Board 3 Atch 1. UFO Report 2. FTD Form 164 3. Sat Review Article Page 43 \ HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE USAF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE a CHIEF OF STAFF DATE MEMO FOR: .A...oa....,._ .. I NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 45 r .. I I l 1l NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 46 s Page 47 r . INDEX PAGE • P-.:rpose 1 Part I: History of Meetings of Panel 1. Part II: Comments and·· Suggestions of Panel 7. General ? On Lack of Danger . 8 Air Force Reporting System 9 Art:tfacts of Extraterrestrial Origin 10 • Tremonton, Utah, Sighting 11 Potential Related Dangers 15 Geographic Locations of Unexplained Sightings 15 Instrumentation to Obtain Data 16 Radar Problem of Mutual Interference 18 Unexplained Cosmic Ray Phenomena 19 Educational Program 19 Unofficial Investigating Groups 23 Increase in Number of Sightings 24 Report of Panel Tab A List of Personnel Concerned with Meetings Tab B List of Documentary Evidence Presented Tab C NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 48 SSlFIED r 16 February 1953 ME:-iORA.NDUH FOR: .­ FROM •·• SUBJECT : Report of Mectines of tho. ; • ~ Scientific Advisory t'an~l on ~nidentified J:s"Plying Objects, January 14 - 18, 1953 PURPosg The purpose of this momorandu.m is to ,.Present: a. A brief hi.story of the meetings of tho , Advisory Panel On Unidentified Flying Objects (Part I), 'b. An unofficial supplement to the official Panel Report: . aetting forth cor..m.ents and suggestions of the Panel Members which they believed were inappropriate for inclusion in the forme.l report (Part II). PART I: HISTORY OF MEI~INGS GENERAL .. After co11sideration of the subject of "unidentified flying objects" at the 4 December meeting of the the following action was agreed: "The ·will: a. Enlist the services of selected scientists to review and appraise the available evidance in the light of pertinent scientific theories ..•." FoJ.lo-wi~1g the delegation of this action to the: • ,and ?reliminary investigation, NW 90306" Doclrl:34714841 Page 49 .. UNC SSlflED an Advisory Panel of selected scientists was assembled. In ·cooperation with the Air Technical Intelligence Center, case histori€s of reported sightings and related material were .. made available .for their study and consideration.. Present at the initial meeting_(09;0 Wednesday, 14 January) .. were: Dr. H.P. Robertson, Dr. } Dr. Thornton Page, Dr. Samuel A. Goudsmit, • '-· . , and the writer. Panel Member, Dr. Lloyd V. Berk­ ner, was absent until.Friday afternoon. Messrs. ;were present throughout the sessions to familiarize themselves with the subject, repr~sent the substantive interest-of their Divisions, and assist in administrative support of the meetings. (A list of personnel concerned with the meetings is given in Tab A. WEDNESDAY MORNING The ~· • opened the meeting, reviewing CIA interest in the • subject and action taken. This review included the mentiOll of the~ ·;Study Group of August 1952 : culminating in the briefing of the...... the ATIC November 21 briefing, 4 December , consideration, visit to ATIC ~ Robertson and I anc1· • concern over potential dangers to national security indirectly related to these sightings. Mr. enumerated these potential dangers. Following this introductior., Dr. turned the meeting ' over·to - 2 ­ UNC SSIFIE□ NW 90306" Doclrl:34714841 Page 50 -- 11 r the evidence available and requested consido~ation of specific . reports and letters be taken by pertain individuals present (Tab B). For example, case histories involving radar or radar and visual :• sightings were solected for Dr. - ~-=- -::.Jwhile reports of Groen Fireball phenomena, nocturnal lights, and suggested programs of investigation were routed to Dr. -Page. Following these remarks, the motion pictures of the sightings at Tremonton, Utah (2 ' July 1952) . and Great Falls, Montana (1.5 August 19.50) were shown. The meet,ing adjourned at-1200. WEDNESDA.Y AFI'ERNOON The second meeting of tho Panel opened at 1400. Lt. __ -_ --- ~ .­ USN, and Mr. ______of the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory, Anacostia, presented the results of their analyses of the films mentioned above. This analysis evoked considerable discussion as elaborated upon below. Besides Panel members and CIA. personnel, Capt. E. J. Ruppelt, ·Dr .. ~.;;..-::.:.::::::.::...-.:..~:;:;...r.:::i.-..:-:a.-,--~ ____·_·-_ .. (2-a-2), and Dr.'"'"·-----..~-~--­ were present. Following the Photo Interpretation Lab presentation, Mr. E. J. Ruppelt spoke for about·4o minutes on ATIC methods or handling and evaluating reports or sightings and their efforts to improve the quality of reports. The meeting was adjourned at 1715. IFIEO NW9030fi • Docld:34714841 Page 51 ---- •• r , THURSDAY MORNING The third an<l fourth ro.oetings of the Panel were held Thursday, 15 January, commencing at 0900 with a two-hour break for luncheon • ... .,_____ . Bosides Panel members and CIA personnel, Mr. Ruppo1t and Dr•~ were present for both s~ssions. In the morninz, Mr. Ruppclt con­ tinuod his briefing on ATIC collection and analysis procedu.res. was described by Dr .. A.number of case histories were dis­ --:-­ . cussed in detail and a motion picture film of seagulls was shown. A two hour break for lunch was taken at 1200. THURSDAY AFI'.ERN00N 1 At 1400 hours •________-.gave a 40-minute briefing of Project 'IWINKLE, the investigatory project conducted by the Air Forco Meteorological Research Center at CaDibridg~, Mass. In this briefing he pointed out the many problems of setting up and manning 24-hour instrumentation watches of patrol cameras searching for sightings of U.F.O. 's. At 1615 \joined the meeting with ~-----------~ --····-··---, ' \:.~~-----· _I expressed his support of the Panel's efforts and stated three personal opinions: . a. That greater use of Air Force intelligence officers in the field (for follow~up investigation) ap?eared desirable. but that they required thorough briefing. - 4 ­ NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 52 \. ----- JI'\ ,i,:, 8 f'I A/' ,...,.. •. • J, ~~tf,.~~:i;~~rlED b•. That. vigorou:::; effort should be ma.do to declassify as many of tho reports as possible. c. That some inc::t:•oaGe in the ATIC section devoted to U.F.O. analysis was indicated. This meeting was adjou~ned at 1700~ F'RIDAY MORNING 4 ­ The fifth session of the Panel convened at 0900 with the same . personnel present as enumerated for Thursday (with the exception From 0900 - 1000 there was general discussion and study ·of ---·. reference material. Also, read a prepared paper rr.aking certain observations and conclusions. At 1000 ge1.V8 a briefing on his fifteen months experience in Washington as Project Officer for U.F.0.'s and his personal co~clusions. There was considerable discussion of individual case histories of sightings .,...1'1:•• I t I ..... to which he referred. Following , . _ presentation, a - number of additional case histories were examined and.discussed .A. • ••• - -· with Messrs. Ruppelt, and'----··-- The meeting adjourned at 1200 for luncheon. FRIDAY AFTERNOON ... This session .opened at 1400 .. Besides Panel members and CIA ... ' "-----­ personnel, Dr._ was present. Dr. Lloyd V. Berkner, as Panel Member, was present at this meeting for the first time.· Progress ·or the meetings was reviewed by the Panel Chairman and tentative - 5 ­ NW 90306" Dodd:34714S41 Page 53 NW 90306" conclusions reached. A general discussi.on followed and ten~ative recommendations considered. It was agreed that the Chairman should ... draft a report of the Panel to that evening for review by the Panel the next morning. Tho mootin~ adjourned at 1715. SATURDAY MOilliING --■--•----­ At 094.5 the Chairman opened the seventh session and subznitted a rough draft of the Panel Report to the members. This draft had been reviewed and approved earlier by Dr. Berkner. The next two and one-half hours were consumed in discussion and revision of the .... draft,, At 1100 the• ... joined the meeting and reported that he had shown and discussed a copy of the initial rough draft to tho Director of Intelligence, USAF, whose reaction was favorable At ;I!, 1200 the meeting was adjourned. SATURDAY AFTERNOON At 1400 the eighth and final meeting of the Panel was opened. Discussion and rewording of certain sentences of the Report occupied_ the first hours. (A copy of the final report is appended as Tab C.) This was followed by a review of work accomplished by the P.anel and restatement of inqividual Panel Member's opinions and suggestions on details that were felt inappropriate for inclusion in the formal report. It was agreed that the writer vould incorporate these conunents in an internal report to the The material below represents this information. - 6 ­ •4' ........ •• ··-( ... \ •• UNC Page 54 Docld:34714841 .,~ ~ --~-, •. ,JI\~~a ....... ;.\ .f21l~J' II: COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF PJJUi!.. GENERAL The Panel Members woro impressed (ac have been others, includ­ ing ___-pe;,:.sonnol) in the lack of sound c!.3.ta in the great m.u.jority of' case histories; also, in the lack o:f spocdy foJ.low-up due primarily to the modest sizo and lirnited facilities of tho ATIC section concernad. Among the case histories of significant sightings discussed in detail were the following: Bellefontaine, Ohio (1 August 1952); Tremonton, Utah (2 July 1952) ;. Great Falls, Montana (15 Aug~st 1950); Yaak, Montana (l September 1952}; Washington, D. C. area (19 July 1952); and Haneda A.F.B.* Japan (5 August 1952), Port Huron, Michigan (29 July 1952); and Presque Isle, Maine (10 October 1952). After review and discussion of these cases (and about l others, in less detail), the Panel concluded that reasonable ~~~~-~e ~~~~~~$~~.,~~~~:~,,~~~~ ,.:~~~in~_,g~c;!}!S ,~ method it could be induced en additional data) that other cases ...................,• ..,............,},~,:f'l.'\\.d,..,'t..,\,J,i.,,i~''•,':j,:•1•,••,,.<!t~«•'"'~......_,,..,.....,.,._~,~~........,•..1-..v.~•••1:lllfi'~·~Jrt,~~l"W.illl"t·•,+•{,.,jt~­ might be explained in a similar manner". The Panel pointed out that ...__,,_..1,._,,.......,.,..,..'(,.._.,.,.__._.,.,..,,.:44..,,J\f,ti. ,...,,.,..ll,"1-..:'••~"'·•• ,-,,,;.-p,;."'·"•..'IP'~if,i.__...,~i<'M,.:...\,·~\/f/':.~~,.,...,..,.,'.l>"'~•~,......~"t~/--· because of the brevity of some sightings (e.g. 2-3 seconds) and the iria.bility of the witnesses to express themselves clearly (semantics) that conclusive explanations could·not be cted for every case ' reported. Furthermore, it was considered that, normally, it would .___..... be a great waste· of effort to try to solve most of the sightings, unless such action would benefit a training and educational program. {see below). The writings of Charles Fort were l"eferenced to show Page 55 - 7 ­ UNC SSIFIEO NW 90306" Docld:34714841 that "strange thi~gs in the years. It appeared obvious that there was no sinzle explanation for a :majority of the things seen. The proscnco of radar and astro­ nomical specialists on the Panel proved of value at onco in their confident recognition of p!10nomena related to the:..r f::..elds. It was .. apparent that specialists in such additional fields as psychology, meteorology, aerodynamics, ornithology and military air operations would extend the ability of the Panel to recognize many more cate­ gories of little-known phenomena. ON LACK OF DANGER Tho Panel concluded unanimously that there was no evidence of ~Jl....,....,____,>,,.,••,1'1.......llj;,t,;f.,_,','!''•r,,,..........,,..,)t'"I......,, , ,,,k..,.,,.1"1'"• \,j;lc'(' ,.,.,,.,..~.-,,,,_ ♦\'I\, "''"""i-.,_.,_.,................t,w.,........,...,-i..t<'...(1"1fi'l',1'>•"'♦,-,.l,~l..,t"..,........,~f'•"'""'""''"°'•"'''li>"'I....~-,~...~ a direct thrc.:i.t to national security in the objects sighted. ".r, ".":: :,tl..i<h :· •',......~.-· ... 'V"' ..•••,,;,...: 1,/!r~t. ,..,.t / " •."'' ••, ' •4\'l,·t•,"-"" .,. ') 4,,. ,,,{IIIIJ~•·!J.,'\}•1,,.,11,,,:,1,:,., .•yr, ··~·.....t •11,.•\>•} ,f .,,.1ii,,,.,....... ~·..:,'. .,,,,,,.,1,1":"*•I»'.' ,;' (11,.,l,.t«-li•' ..,,• .,,... ..,f'" ,: ' ~ •'·+!-. ~' ·,¥,, ,-:,,,......•,.<h,:l\,,J.."-,~,•ill'•:r'· "' JtK,, Instances of "Foo Fighters" were cited. These were unexplained phenomena sighted by aircraft pilots during World War II in both European and Far Fis.st theaters of operation wherein 11balls of light" would fly nen.r or with the aircraft and maneuver rapidly. They we:co believed to be electrostatic (similar to St. Elmo's fire) or electr.)­ magnetic phenomena or possibly light renections from ice crystals in the 8.ir, but their ex.act cause or nature was never defined.. Both Robertson and,_ had been concerned in the investigation of these phenomena, but David T. Griggs (Professor of Geophysics at the University of California at Los Angeles) is believed to have been the most knowledgeable person on this subject. If the term "flying saucers" had been popular in 194.) - 1945, these objects would - 8 ­ NW 90306" Dodd:34714S41 .Page 56 -- have been so labeled. It was interesting that in at least "b-10 cases reviewed that the object sightod was catogorizcd by Robertson ,I as probably "F'oo Fighters", to dato unex.pla:incd but not danet!)rous; they wore not hl:tppy thus to clism:iss the si2:ht.irlcs by calling them namos. It was their feeling that theso phenomena are not boyond the domain of present knowledee of physical sciences, however. AIR FORCE REPORTING SYSTEM _._,_________, It was·the Panel's opinion that some of the Air Force concern over U.F.0.'s (notwithstanding Air Do.fens0 Cownand anxiety over fast radar tracks) was probably caused by public pressure. The result today is that the Air.Force a fine ch one sees in the sky and fails to Wlderstand. This has been particularly encouraged in popu­ lar articles on this and other subjects, such as space travel and science fiction. The result is the mass receipt of low-grade reports which tend to overload channels of comnrunication with material quite " i:rrelevant. to hostile objects that might .some day appear. The Panel ~.., ____________.., agreed generally that this mass of poor-quality reports containing ~~...................~~•11.r,,~d,,,~i::.:«,....,¥1r'.~1~,.._w,'>'fflil--f: t,,·, '''~,t-,f"....'•,'k,,~·-t,j!liJl':~.tlJ\t(,4/:'.',l~."!,JIIIIIUlf'•''!:''l....:,~•---_:r'<;.;,,;(••~';•~--t••MN'.".1.fJ,'",'J//lt:<''""'*.,.. little, if any, scientific data was of no value. Quite the opposite, it was possibly dangerous in having a lllilitary service foster public . concern in "nocturnal meandering lights". The implication being, since the interested agency was military, that these objects were or might be_potential direct threats to national security. Accord- • ingly, the ·.ieed for d,eemphasization made itself apparent. Comments on a possible educational program are en'n~erated b'elow. Ifi£D NW 90306" Docld:34714841 Page 57 . NW 90306" Docld:34714841 It was the opinion of D-.c. Robortson that the "saucer" problem had been found to be different in nature froro tho detection and investigation of Gorman V-1 and V-2 guidc6 missiles prior to their operational use in World War II.. In this 1943-194-l~ irJ.toll:i.zcnce operation (qROSSBCM), there was excellent intelligence and by June J.9l-t,LJ. there was mat,orial evidence of the existence of "hardware" · obtained from crashed vehicles i.n Sweden. This evidenco gave the investigating team a basis upon which to operate. The absence of nhardwaro0 rosulting f.rom unexplained U.F.O. siehtings lends a "will­ ••!< ...............~....,.,,,""'...............~_.,...,,..,.,....,...,,.._/..,_''"',>!>•""' ~,,-~"''"'l<'~<t..,.,.,.•'('•·· "'·,.•••',/... ..... ,.,....,,..... t"''"""~---~."'f,,1 ►,.,.,.,.~•,..., ,._,,,r,:Y,t, '•'lllk"+.c•""V•t-•;';,, .,,...,twlr•'•'• ,,..,,,~:·•".-;-'lllll'•,r# .....,v<•~.-:,~,.........,,~~-:i of-the wisptt nature to the ATIC problem. The results of their investi.­ ~., .........,,.,..~,.,. .............. ~~-,........,,.-•...~1.........,...,,,, .•"',,Jt:-""-..,... ;,,. ••'•1'!''\o!' .,,,,,,,1,-'/,')....... ,.,. gat1on, to date, strongly indicate that no evidence of hostile act or danger exists. Furthermore, the current reporting system would .. have little value in the caso of detection of enemy attack by COQVen­ t'ional aircraft or guided missiles; under ·such conditions "hardware" would be available almost at once. ARTIFACTS OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN ----------.,.. II r tr Ill ■ It was interesting to note that none of the members of the Panel were loath to accept that this earth might be visited by extra­ ' terrestrial intelligent beings of some sort, sonie day. What they did not find was aey evidence that re~ated the objects sighted to space travelers. Mr.-· ___ .,;, in his presentation, showed how he had elim­ inated each of the known and probable causes of sightings leaving him "extra-terrestrial" as the on