DAF 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,
The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. Tele. 695-5554 (Code 11-55554).

Room 4C922,

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
Member
SAB Secretary
Participant
Participant
SAB Secretary

Dr. Jesse Orla.nsky
Col Robert Burger
ol Robert Hippler
Mrs. Sara Hunt
L/Col Harold A. Steiner

Consultant
IDA

AFBSA
AFRSTA

SAFOI
Hq USAF (AFRSA)

reviewed

IV.
••

Reviewed - Report of the SAB Ad Hoc Conmiittee to Review Project Blue
Book, March 1966.
I

V.

Verbatim Record:

VI.

Certification:

(see attached)

These meeting statistics are certified as being true and correct.

HAROLD A. STEINER, Lt Colonel, USAF
Assistant Secretary
USAF Scientific Advisory Board

NW 90306.
Docld:34714a41 Page 5

1 Atch
Record, dated 20 Apr 66

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
Original--#1-o::f-t:,--~~

eJ

#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
,
~--~ II' i't~i::t-<2;:f:,:L,#•t.•.) .hi':.~;'? i~:.ll·z..i

m.Jm

NW 90306"

Docld:34714841 Page 6

• c~

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. ~ :
II.

(see attached)

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

IT.

~

Dr. Brian O'Brien
Dr. IB.unor F. Carter
Dr. Jesse Orlanaky
Dr. Richard Porter
Dr. Carl Sagan

Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member

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

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)

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:
V.

Affiliation

Compilation of Project Blue Book Methods and Case Histories,
dated 3 February l

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

'

... .,

.

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFOs)

AGENDA
• ,.;J1ursday, 3 FeJ?ruary 1966
0800

Welcoming Remarks

Commander or
Vice Commander, FTD

0805

Introduction

Dr. O'Brien, SAB

0810

The Air Force Problem

Lt Col Spaulding,

SAFOI
0830

Briefing on Project
Blue Book

1000

Break

1015

Review of Selected
Case Histories

1145

Lunch

1315

Executive and Writing
Session

Major Quintanilla,
FI'D

FTD Staff

NER, Lt Colonel, USAF
Assistant Executive Secretary
USAF Scientific Advisory Board

22 December 1965
8

NW90306,
Dodd :3471.uJ41 ~'age 8

~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.ttee1 uy 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
Rensselaer, Tro7, lf.Y.
Columbia
NYU

Univ ot Conn.
Yale
Cornell
ll\1v of Dayton

Carnegie Tech

Colr.Y'11r
NW 90306"
Doclrl:3471.ffl41 Page 9

.ot.......-~Copies

West

South

Utah

Vanderbilt

Colorado
Duke
Univ of Florida
Iowa
Wisconsin
Georgia Tech
Illinois
U:liv of Georgia
Chicago
univ of Calif (Berkeley)
UCLA
Obairman
Oregon
.,..votary
WashiDgton
~bnioalDir
Rice
~sst. Seoreta
lbiv ot Texas

--

---

~st. S@oreta
~st. se'creta
-Asst. $earet , .. _ _...,,,
»-•r ~tioial Use Only Ac:ttsrili/A's st.-----L....._,-·-·_,_ __

.

.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.

5. Since we are dealing with an emotional phenomenon, there was some
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

,t

t·

(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

Lt Col, UBAJ'

'\,

~-

Asaietant Secretary
USAr Scienti.tic Advisory Board

-'

'

1

,,,.,

I

V

..

..
.,

'

'

\

,,

3

l'tr Otticial Use Onlv
NW 90306"

Docld:34714841 Page 11

•

,,-;w~·~;;tlSIM.~•~,,,·,"'i-;;;•n•;_..r,,

MEMO IOUl'INS SUP

_,:_1_:~---~·~-. . ,._ _

1

TO

i

!

;'XJNJUilll.:INt'ES Oil
_ _. :..1':...., _...

._J.r,,._-; _ _ _ _ _ _.... •,...., _ _. ,__1

I ,am&u

_ _ _ _ _""t,,,,v1)1.1'-. . .~.

~iK~!J\U

• ~ - - - - - - - - - - - • -..- ...., , _ ~ ~ • • - - - - - - - - • • • • • I :i...-.,•-•---!i.-1•""'-•;i-,_,,®,~•-c,••<I,,__,,,-.,,___,;_,.

c t s·--~
I

t

1•

nt.a

,~-.

t •' ,•

/,

REIIARD

FROM

AFRDQ-P (Mr. Baillie)
FORM

1 OCT SO

NW 90306,

Docld:34714841 Page 12

a-...
DD FOftD i4. 1 Feb IIO ud DD Fcna 86,
l Piib 60 wbioh will be lad UDtilabauaed.

*

GPO: tSl60--0--6IIZM

COPY
31 July 1967

AFRDQ-P

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, USAF
ief, Requirements Plans Group
Operational Requirements &
Development Plans, DCS &D

.COPY,...
NW90306

Docld:34714841 Page 13

l Atch
Special Report of the
USAF SABAd Hoc COIL~

mittee to Review
Project "Blue Book" dtd
Mar 66, 2 cys

MBl«>RANDUMFORRICORD

SUBJECT:

18 May 1966

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 t h e ~ 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.

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

b.

my be conatrue4 to be related to the U10 inveatigation.)

Dr. SteTer belieYe■ that, aa a vbole, the mller universities vill
be :more receptive tban the l&rger onea.

, 4.

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 w1 th 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

Secretary
USAf Sc1ent1t1c Adviaory Board

2

NW 90306,

Docld:347'14841 Page 16

Copies to:

Lt Col Hippler, .lFR8'1'

Mra. Bunt, SA.rOI
Dr. Brian O'Brien

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..._............... . ..
,,

,

,

"'"'"_,_,..

... .... .... ......
,,

,

,

,

"

DEPAR~· ';MT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR STAFF '
1

s tGNA T UFUi (Surname and Grade)

ACTION

TO

•MARY SHEET
SIGNATURE (Surname and Grede)

ACTION

AFRDC
2

7

3

1-----------------t

8

4

9

5

1--------------110

SURNAME OF

ACTION OFFICER

ANO GRAOlt

Lt Colonel Steiner

SYMBOL

PHONE

AFBSA

78845

TYPIST'S INIT,

SUSPENSE DATE

mjm
OATS:

SUBJECT

30 March 1966

SAB Ad Hoc Committee Report
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:
Number of
SAFOI

25

AFRDC

l

Coanittee Members
Commander, FTD
AFSC DCS/Foreign Technology
SAB Secretariat

leach

5

2
2
1

Chairman, SAB

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

AFHQ JA0RR~2 50

PREVIOUS EDIT! ONS OF THI s FORM ARE OBSOLETE.

l
fl

~w 9030fi

II Docld:34714841 Page 19

2 Atch

1. Ltr of Transmittal
2. SAFOI Memo, 28 Sep 65

NW 90306"

Docld:34714841 Page 20

DEPARl
TO

ACTION

NT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR STAFF !

SIGNATURE (Surname and Grade)

Gen F
Mil

TO

'MRY SHEET

ACTION

SIGNATUAE (Surname and Grade)

6

2

7

3

8

9

s

10

SURNAME OF

ACTION OFFICER AND GRADE

SYMBOL.

PHONE

Col Burger

AFBSA

74811

TYPIST•s INIT.

SUSPENSE DA TE

al
DATE

SUl'lJliCT

SAB Information/Action Item

5 October 1965

SUMMAPl Y

This request arrived in our office today apparently without
your seeing it.
1.

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.
2.

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.

3.

ROBERT . BUR
Colonel, USAF
Secretary
USAF Scientific Advisory Board

.,

AFHQ ::RR~2

50

PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THI s FORM ARE OBSOLETE.

NW 90306"

Docld:34714841 Page 21

Atch
Memo on UFOs

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

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

I

6

NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 23

/

·1·
.

(i(

N. S, '1·· I r·1 • .l 1· · 1~

1·-?...J

1d rei hnu! (,gy l)iviswn

I

l,_

·i

l I.;;

.

..

F () R.

---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
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
certainly seems comprehensive® I1he National Academy
review certainly gives it good credibility and
ought to take care of any serious critici.sm.
1

Cordially yours,

c--··--~.
\.

c·a:~~~r •

'-.,,

N"•····~:·.

;''.

·, ...

Vice President and Manager
Public Systems Division
LFC:db

NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 25

"'

-----

I fA~

20330

l2 February l

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

Aaa1atant Executive Secretary

USAF Scien·tific M:fiaory Board

'
1,

LtCol Ste1ner/dd/l2reb

11

I!
I
I

I

NW 90306"

Docld:3471.ffl41 Page 26

l Atch
Condon fteport (3 Yola)

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
tll&t a b7-product would be the•• vollainoua doctaenta.
Peraonally, I am aatistied vith the oontent.a and beline the
1

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
USAF Scientific AdY1aory Board

Condon Report (3 Vola)

SAMI LE'l'TRR ro:

l

I NW 90306,
f Docld:34714841 Page 27

Dr. Launor F. Carter

Mr. Jesse Orlansky
Dr. Richard Porter
Dr. Carl Bagan
Dr. Willis H. Ware

20330
27 February 1968
AFBSA
Requeat for Project Blue Book Material

Mr. Don Berliner
National Inveatigations C011mittee
on Aeria 1 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 Scientif'ic Advis~ry Board
by tb.e Project Blue Book office.
1

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.

2..

HAROLD A. STEINER, Lt Colonel, USAF
Assistan·t Executive Secretary

USAF Scientific Advisory Boe.rd

1 Ateh
Project Blue Book Material

f
'"' (

"""'"
;".,/

NW 90306"

Docld:34714841 Page 29

""

7 ...

NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE
ON AERIAL PHENOMENA
MAJOR DONALD E. KEYHOI:.
USMC (IUET.) DIRll'CTOft
GORDON I. Pl. LORE. JR.
AS91STANT DIIUiCTOR

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036

ADMINIST"ATIVIE Ol"l"ICIIS:

UJ:Se CONNltCTICUT AVE., N.W.

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

Reference your request directed to SAF-OICO tor portions of Project
Bluebook Reports.
l.

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
payable to "Trea.,uz~:r ot the United State•" and NID1t to thie office.

Chief', Information Branch
Directorate ot .ldminietrati'Ye Servioda

...,~ '~·i,

".I'......,....:

NW 90306"

[)ocld:34714841 Page 31

'""'· .-. ''"••""

•

. ~.•- .k

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
SUBJECT:

16 May 1967

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.
personnel attended:

The following

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, tangible results because these
studies have rimaril been concerned with investi ati
According to the UOC Con:nnittee, the
is not the sighting per
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

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~l z. 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.
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.
10.

Assistant
USAF Scient

Lt Colonel, USAF
cutive Secretary
ic Advisory Board

2 Atch
1. Comments by UOC Committee
2. Progress Report

3

NW 90306"
Docld:.34714841 Page 35

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT:

10 August 1966

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
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
in April 1966. 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.

2

REPLY TO
ATTN OF:

suaJEcr:

TO:

1 January 1966

Some SAFOI Thoughts for the SAB Ad Hoc Connnittee on UFOs
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.

NW 90306,
Doclrl:34714841 Page 41

Undtrwn'te Your Country's

t - B~y U.S. Savings Botzds

..

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

NW 90306,
Docld:347"14841 Page 43

3 Atch
1.

UFO Report

2.

FTD Form 164

3.

Sat Review Article

\

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

.

I

I
I!

f

l
r

11

1l
I

ti

l
]

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)

.

Dr. H.P. Robertson, Dr.

were:

} 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.

the~

This review included the mentiOll of

·; Study Group of August 1952 :

culminating in the briefing of the......

, consideration, visit to ATIC ~

briefing, 4 December
Robertson and

the ATIC November 21

I

anc1·•

concern over potential dangers

to national security indirectly related to these sightings.

Mr.

enumerated these potential dangers.

introductior., Dr.

'

turned the meeting over·to
- 2 -

NW 90306"
Doclrl:34714841 Page 50

Following this

UNC SSIFIE□

r

the evidence available and requested consido~ation of specific
. reports and letters be taken by pertain individuals present (Tab B).

11

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.

NW9030fi

• Docld:34714841 Page 51

The meeting was adjourned at 1715.

IFIEO

..

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 •

.,__ ___ .

---were present for both s~ssions. In the morninz, Mr. Ruppclt conBosides Panel members and CIA personnel, Mr. Ruppo1 t and Dr•~
••

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

~-----------~
expressed his support of the Panel's

--····-··---,

'

\ : . ~ ~ - - - - - · _I

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;~~r

•

lED

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
to which he referred.

. ,. . .1'1:• •

Following ,.

I

t I .....

_ presentation, a

-

number of additional case histories were examined and.discussed
with Messrs.

.A.

•

••• -

-·

----··--

Ruppelt, and'

at 1200 for luncheon.

The meeting adjourned

FRIDAY AFTERNOON
...
This session .opened at 1400 .

...

personnel, Dr._

'

"------

Besides Panel members and CIA

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

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
Panel the next morning.

that evening for review by the

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

;I!,

At

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
The material below

conunents in an internal report to the
represents this information.

- 6•• ··-(

...

••
•4'

NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 54

........

\

UNC

.f21l~J' II:

.,~

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF PJJUi!..

~

- ~-, •. ,JI\~~

a

....... ;.\

GENERAL

The Panel Members woro impressed (ac have been others, includ­
___- pe;,:.sonnol) in the lack of sound c!.3.ta in the great m.u.jority

ing

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 : l l l f i ' ~ · ~ J r t , ~ ~ l " W . i l l l " t · • , + • { , . , j t ~ -

might be explained in a similar manner".
..._ _,,_..1,._,,.......,.,..,..'(,.._.,.,.__._.,.,..,,.:44..,,J\f,ti. ,...,,.,..ll,"1-..:'••~"'·••

The Panel pointed out that

,-,,,;.-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

- 7 -

NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 55

UNC SSIFIEO

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
~ J l . . . . , . . . . ,____,>,,.,• •,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 11 balls 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.
today is that the Air.Force

The result
-

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.

NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 57 .

Ifi£D

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

nhardwaro 0 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.
~., .........,,.,..~,.,...............~~-,........,,.-•...~ 1 . . . . . . . . . , . . . , , , , .•"',,Jt:-""-..,...;,,.

••'•1'!''\o!'

The results of their investi.-

.,,,,,,,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 COQVent'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 eliminated each of the known and probable causes of sightings leaving him
"extra-terrestrial" as the only one remaining in many cases. ,­
background as an aeronautical engineer a.i~ technical intelligence
- 10 -

NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 58

•

. ~ 's

officer (Project Officer, BLUEBOOK for 15 months) could not be
slighted.

However, the Panel could ~ot accept any of the cases

cited by hi:m because they wore raw, unevaluated reports.
Terrestrial oxplnnations of the sicht:'i.ngs wore suceestod in some

cases· and il) others the t:i.me of si.ghtine was so short as to cause
suspicion of visual impressions.

It was noted by Dr. Goudsmit and

others that extraterrestrial artifacts, if they did exist, are no
cause for alarm; rather, they are in the realm of natural phenomena
subject to scientific study, just as cosmic rays were at the time
of their discovery 20 to JO years ago.

This was an attitude in

which Dr~ Robertson did not concur, as he felt that such artifacts
would bo of immediate and grea.t concern not only to the U.S. but
to all cotmt:r.ies.

(N.othine like a coITlDlon threat to unite peoples l)

Dr. Page noted that present astronomical 'knowledge of the solar
system Il1'.).kes the existence of inteliigent beings (as we know the
term) elsewhere than ~n the earth extremely unl..~kely, and the
concentration of their attention by any controllable means conf~~-~
}•" ,, •,,;t,t,.,.,,,,.,

to any one continent of the earth
,tAr,t.\'•'l<"'lif,..................../.~1"_,,-,.,.........; ~ r , ". . . .tJl(,tV.,,,_,.,.......l

..

_,.,,,, ~<'/' ,.~,-•~ti,\ y,

,,,..

, ,oc,"< ...l*,,:_. ,i., ,.,, •~• ._,_,, ,;

,Ms,,, ,

•n¥ J'• ,v<•,~,.;lllo,o'J,, '<, ..., >

te preposterous.
1i<r."'oj•,,

•''¥ ,:..,·•*~\\ ....\ "'•"flll'W,. .,,~,,., • .,,,,ji:'.,""'il,'-"t'fr

.-.;

,,)(\<~,,'

_!H~NONTON, UTAH 2 SIGHTING

This case was cons~dered sigpificant because of the excellent
documentary evidence in the form of Kodachrome motion picture films
(about 1600 frames).

The Panel studied these films, the case history,

ATIC's interpretation, and received a briefing by representatives of
the USN Pho+.o Interpretation Laboratory on their analysis of the

fi1m.

This ·tca1r: had expended (at Air For~e request) approximate1y

- 11 NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 59

.

1000 mun-hours of professional and sub-professional time in the
preparation of graph plots of individual frames of tho film, show­
ing apparent and l'e1ative motion of objects and variation in their
1icht intensity.

It was tho opinion of tho P.I.L. representatives

that tho objects sighted wero not birds, balloons or aircraft,
were "not renections becau::;o thero was no blinking while passing
through 60° of arc" and were, therefore, "self-luminous".

Plots of

motion and variation in light intensity of the objects wore dis­
played. While the Panel Members wore impressed by the evident
enthusiasm, industry and extent of effort of the P.I.L. teani, they
could not accept the conclusions reached.

Some of the roasons for

this were as follows:

NW 90306"
, Doclrl:34714841 Page 60

a.

A semi-spherical object can readily produce a renection
of.sunlight without "blinking" through 60° of arc travel.

b.

Although no da:t.a was available on the "albedo" of birds or
pol?ethylene balloons in bright sunlight, the apparent
motions, sizes and brightnesses of the objects were
considered strongly to suggest birds, particularly after
the Panel viewed a short film showing high reflectivity
of seagulls in bright sunlight.

c.

P.I.L. description of the objects sighted as "circular,
bluish-white" in color would be expected in cases of
specular reflections of sunlight from convex surfaces where
the brilliance of the reflection would obscure other portions

of the object.
- 12 -

d.

Objects in the Groat Falls case wore believed to have
probably been aircraft, ;;1.nd the bri~ht lights nuch roflections.

o.

There was no valid reason for tho attempt to relate the objects
in the Tremonton sighting to those in tho Great Fa1J.s sight­
ing.

This may have been duo to misundersta.ndine in their

directive.

The objects in the Groat Falls sighting are

strongly suspected of being rofloctions of aircraft known to
have been :in the area.

f.

The intensity change in the Tremonton lights was too great
for acceptance of the P.I.L. hypothesis that tho apparent
moti.on and changing intensity of tho lights indicated oxtreme1y

high speed in small orbital paths.
g.

Apparent lack of guidance of investigators by those familiar
with U"F.O. reports and explanations.

h.

Analysis of light intensity of objects made from duplicate
rather than original film.

.

The origin:11 film was noted to

have a much lighter background (affecting relative brightness
of object) and the objects appeared much less bright.
i.

'
Method of obtaining data of light intensity appeared faulty

because of unsuitability of equipment abd questionable
I,

assumptions in making averages of readings.
j.

No data had been obtained on the sensitivity of Kodachrome
fi1m to light of various intensities using the same camera
type at the same lens openings.

- lJ -

NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 61

k.

Hand "jitter" frequonci0s (obtainable from early part of
Tremonton film) were not removed from the plots of the
"sinelo pa.ss p1ots" at the end of tho fi.lrn.

The Panel believed strongly that the data available on this
sighting was sufficient for positive identification if further data
is obtained by photographing polyethylene "pillow" balloons released
near the site under similar weather conditions, checking bird flight
and reflection charactorist:ics with competent ornithologists and~
calculating apparent "G" forces acting upon objects from their apparent
tracks.

It was concluded that the results of such tests would prob­

ably 1cad to creditable explanations of value in an educational or
training program.

However, the Panel noted that the cost in technical

manpower effort roquJred to follow up and explain every one of the
thousand or· more reports recei ·,ed through channels each year (1,900 in
1952) could not be justified.

It was felt that there will always be

sightings, for
. which complete data is lacking, that can only be •

.

oxplained with disproportionate effort and with a long time delay, if
at all.

The long delay in explaining a sighting tends to eliminate •

any intelligence value.

The educational or training program shoul

have as a major purpose the elintlnation of popular feeling that every
.•.¥,, ;,Jt'.11{\~~\g, ··,'<'<'~ft~4'-9'••,.·•i';,·,,.,~. . . .<,:\..;,:-'io,.,~,,.;ti;,Cl11M1,'lt:'tl~':,tl·J, ).l,,,.~1-1•;,;,11t.·

,,

. .{:I•..._;,...

sighting, no matter how poor the data, must be explained i~ ~.eta~,l ..
,.,,.... , . - ~ ...,_,_.,,,.,,..,.+,...,1,,,v,..,,_._,_A·.,,,...v,.~ ..,.._
1

_..._.,.,_.._,,t,.;r,{,...,.,~\;t.,.i;,J.;,.,,..,;,, O<s..l<\"',.,"l"t\,,.,~•~t•,"•>'•• •••h

.,r,,

<<

'

,;-.i,"

• "';,,-. ,,f•":'"•'

Attention should be directed to the requirement among scientists that
'f

,~,

'

,.,~

a new phenomena, to be accepted, must be completely and convincingly
documented.

In other words, the burden of proof is on the s
'''f's

'.'

''.

not the explainer.
,,,,..,'.'!•'>l:•:,"~'f' ",,,: ,,~t~•,, ,,,,,.,,.,,,,:,,1,Y ,f,:\;;,..-,:i, ,1"1!'••1 •'•,'\H:~•,'!'·t<1,:, ",,.:,

- 14 ·Nw 90306"
Doclrl:34714841 Page 62

•

,

,,;•,-«•~•· ,'<,""'"":'~'\"'•''

"''"'Oi....;,,~,"l\>,"'-th,,\,~-"':'t,...,.,(• •,,,\''"V'"'"•

'if,''

!'

•f.r,'lf•,•,-.w,

er,

~:\ho Panel Members were in agreement with

·-- ,... opinion that,

although evidence of any direct threat from these sightings was
wholly la.eking, related d:lnr;ers mieht wol1 exist rcsu1ting from:
a.

Misidentification of actual onemy artifacts by defense
••

personnel.
b*

Overloading of emergency roport:ing channels with "false"
informo.tion ("noise to signal ratio" analogy ... Borkner).

c.

Subjectivity of public to mass hysteria and greater. vul­
nerability to possible enemy pi:ycho1ogical warfare.

Although not the concern of CIA, the first two of these 'problems
may seriously affect the Air Defense intelligence system, and should
be studied by experts, possibly under ADC.

rr·u.F.0.'s become dis­

credited in a reaction to the "flying saucer" scare, or if report­
ing channels are saturated with.false and poorly documented repdrts,
our capability of detecting hostile activity will be reduced.
Dr. Pase notad that more competent screening or filtering of reported
sightings at or near the source is required, and that this can best
be accomplished by an educational program.

\.

GEOGRAPHic" LOCATIONS OF UNEXPLAINED SIGHTINGS
The map prepared by ATIC showing geographic locations of officially
reported unexplained sightings (1952 only) was examined by the Panel.
This map showed clusters in certain strategic areas such as Los Alamos.
This might be explained on the basis of 24-hour watchful guard and

- 15 -

NW 90306"
•
Doctrl:34714841 Page 63.

t

.:twarcno.:;s of security mco.suros near such locations.

On the other

hand, there had beon no s:i..ghtines in the vicinity of sensitive
related AE establishments while there worn occasionally multiple
casas of unoxplainod siehtincs j,n non-stx·a tocio nreas.

Furthormoro,

thore appcurod to be no logical relationship to population centers.
\.

'I'he Panel could find no ready explanation for these clusters.

It

was noted, howevor, that. if terrestrial artifacts were to be obsorved
it wou1d bo 1ikoly that they would be seen first near foreign areas
rather than central U.S.

__________

____
INSTRU:MF:NTATION TO OBTAIN DATA
]

,

The Panel was of the opinion that the present ATIC program to
place 100 inexpensive 35 mm. stereo cameras in the hands of various
airport control tower operators would probably produce little valu­
able data related to U.F'.0.'s.

However, it was recognized that

such action wou.ld tend to allay public concern in the subject until
an educational program had taken effect.

It was believed tha:t pro-

·curement. of these cameras was partly the result of public pressure
in July 1952. With the poor results of the year-long Project
TWINICT.,E program of 24-hours instrumentation watch (two frames of

film showing nothing distinguishable), a widespread program·of sky­
watch,ing would not be expected to yield much direct data of value.

There was considerable discussion of a possible "sky patrol" _by
amateur astronomers ~-· ::::::.:~ and by wide-ang~e cameras (Page).

Dr,.. Page

and Dr. Robertson pointed out that at prnsent a considerable fraction

16

NW 90306"
Doclrl:34714841 Page 64

of the sky is now--and has been for many years-under surveillance
every clear night in several meteor and aurora observing proBrams as
well as sky mapping programs at the various locations listed below.
Although the attention of those astronomers is largely directed
toward identified rather than unidentified objocts, no case of any
striking m1id0ntifiod objoct is known to Dr. Page or Dr.,··

~-·-·-·-·-~

Such

an object would most certa:inly be reported if found on patrol plates.

A case was cited where an astronomer refused to interrupt his

exposure in order to photograph an alleged sighting in a different
part of the sky.

This led Dr. ~ to say that, if a program of

watching could be an adjunct of planned astronomical programs, little
cost would be involved and that the trained astronomical personnel
might photograph a sighting of an unidentified object .
. The location of some of these programs and their directors are
believed to be:
a.

Harvard University, Cambridge and New Mexico (meteor patroll-­
Whipple.

b.

Yerkes Observatory, University of Chicago and For~•Davis, Texas
(several prograrns)--Meinel (auroras), Kuiper,.--·(asteroid.s),
Morgan (wide angle camera).

c.

University of Alaska, Fairbanks (aurorae)--Elvey

d.

Dominion Obs'ervatory, Ottawa (meteors)--Millman

e.

Palomar Observatory, California (sky map)--Minkowski

r.

Lick Observatory, California (sky map)--Shane

- 17 I

NW 90306"
Dodd :34714S41 Page 65

It was ag1.--eed by the Pa11el that no government-sponsored program
of optical nation-wido sky patrol is worthwhile at the present time,
and that the encouragement of amateur astronomers to undertake such
a program 111:i,eht have• the adverse offeot of over--omphasizi.ne; "fiyini

saucer" stories in the public mind ..

However, the issue of radar scope

cameras for recording peculiar radar echoes would serve several pur­

poses, including the better understanding of radar interference as
well as identification of U.F.O.•s.
RA.DAR PROBLFM, OF' MUTUAL INTERFERENCE

This characteristic problem of radar operation wherein the pulse
signal (of approximately the same frequency) from station A may be
picked up on the screen of station B and show as a high-spe.ed track •
or series of dots was recognized.to have probably caused a number of
U.F .o. reports.

This problem was underli.n0d by ir1forma.tion ·received

indicating ADC concern in solving this problem of signal identification . •

before service use of very high-speed aircrart·or guided missiles

(1955-1956).

Dr. Berkner believed that one answer to this problem

was the use of a "doppler filter" in th~ receiving circuit.

Dr.---·

suggested that the problem might be better solved by the use of a
"controlled jitter" wherein the operator receiving "very fast tracks"
(on the order of 1000- 10,000 m.p.h.) would operate a circuit which
woul.d alter slightly his station's pulse frequency rate.

If the signal

received on the screen had been caused by mutual interference with

another station, the track would now show itself at a different distance

- 18 -

NW 90306"
Doclrl:34714841 Page 66

from the center of the screen, if it sti.11 appeared at all.

Dr. •

---

---

felt such a technical solution was simpler and would cost much less than
a "doppler filter 11 •

_
_ ___________
UNEXPLAINED
COSMIC RAY PHalOMENA
,

Two reported cases were examined:

one at Palomar Mountain, California,

i.n October 1949, when cosmic ray counters went "off sea.le for a few seconds",

appa:r·ently wh:i.lo a "V" of flying saucors was observed visually; and two, a
series of observations by tho "Los Alamos Bird Watchers Association" from
August 1950 to January 1951, when cosmi~ ray coincidence counters behaved
Circuit diagrams and records were available for the latter, and

queerly.

_
Dr._._______~was able .quickly to point,out that the recorded data were
.

____.,,

.

undoubtedly· due to instrumental effects that would have been recognized
as such by more experienced observers.
The implication that radioactive effects were correlated with
unidentified flying objects in these two cases was, therefore, rejected
by the Panel.

•

EDUCATIONAL PROGRA.M
___

, _ , ~

The Pane1's concept of a broad educational program integrating
efforts of all concerned agencies was that it should have two major
training and "debunking".

aims:

The training aim would result in proper recognition of unusually
illuminated objects (e~g., balloons, aircraft reflections) as well as
natural phenomena (meteors, fireballs, mirages, noctilucent clouds).
Both visual and radar recognition are concerned.

- 19 -

NW 90306"
Doclrl:34714841 Page 67

There would be many

levels in such education from enlisted personnel to command and research
porso:nnel. Relative emphasis and degree of ex:planati_on of different
programs would correspond to the categories 0£ duty (e.g., radar operators;
pilots; control tower operators;
. Ground Observer Corps personnel; and
office~s and enlisted.men in other categories.) This training should

~·

result in a marked reduction in reports. caused by misidentification
and resultant confusion.

Tho "debunki11g" aim wouJd result in reduction in public interest
i:n "flying saucers" which today evokes a strong ·psychological reaction.

This education could be accomplished by :mass media such as television,
motion :pictures, and popular· articles.

Basis of such education would

be actual case histories which had been puzzling at first but later
explained.

As in the case of conjuring tricks, there is much less

stimulation if the 0 secret 0 is known.

Such a program should tend to

reduce the current gullibility of the public and consequently their
susceptibility to clever hostile propaganda.

The Panel noted that the

general absence of Russian propaganda based on a subject with so many

obvious possibilities for exploitation might indicate a possible Russian
official policy.
Members of the Panel had various suggestions related to the plan­
nir1g of such an educational program.

It was felt strongly that

psychologists familiar with mass psychology should advise on the nature .
and extent of the program.

In this connection, Dr. Hadley Cantril

(Princeton University) was suggested.
- 20 -

NW 90306"
Doclrl:34714841 Page 68

Cantril authored nrnvasion from

Mars," ( a study in the psychology of panic, written about the famous~
Orson Welles radio broadcast in 1938) and has since performed advanced
laboratory stulies in the field of perception. The names of Don Marquis
(Universi.ty of Michigan) and Loe Ro1ten were montioned •• po11ibly
'

'

suitable as copsultant psychologists. Also, someone familiar with
mass communications techniques, perhaps an advertising expert, would be
helpful.

Arthur Godfrey was mentioned as possibly a valuable channel

of communication reaching a mass audience of certain levels. Dr. Berknar .
suggested the U. s. Navy (ONR) Special Devices Center, Sands Point, L. I.,
as a potentially valuable organization to assist in such an educational
program.

The teaching techniques used by this agency for aircraft

iden~ification during the past war was cited as an example of a similar
educational task.

The Jam Handy Co. which me.de World War II training

films (motion picture and slide strips) was 'also suggested, a,s well a.s
Walt Disney, Inc. animated ca.rtoons. Dr.

.--a.

suggested that the

amateur astronoxners in the U.S. might be a potent~!ll source of enthusi-

.

astic talent "to spread the gospel 0 •

It was believed that business

clubs, hig~ schools, colleges, and television stations would afl be
pleased to coope~ate in the. showing of documentary type motion pictures
(

if prepared in an· interesting manner.

The use of true cases showing

first the "mystery:" and ~hen the "explanation" would be forceful.
To plan and execute such a program, .the Panel believed was no
mean task.

The current investigatory group at ATIC would~ of necessity,

have to be cl'->r;ely integrated for support w:i.th respect to not only the.
- 21 -

·NW 90306"

Dodd :347148-41 Page 69

historical cases but the current ones.

Recent cases are probably much

m.ore susceptible to explanation than older ones; first, because of
.,

'

ATIC's experience and, secondly, their knowledge of most plausible
explanations.

The Panel believed that some expansion of the ATIC effort

would certainly be required to support such a program.

It was believed·

inappropriate to state exactly how large a Table of Organization would
be required.

Captain Ruppelt of ATIC unofficially proposed, for purposes

of analyzing and evaluating reports:
a.

An analysts• panel of. four officers

b.

Four officer investigators

c.

A briefing officer

.d. An AOC liaison officer
e.

A weather and balloon data officer

.r. An astronomical consultant
g.

A group Leader, with administrative assistant, file clerks and
stenographers.

This proposal met with generally favorable comment.

The Panel

.

believed that, with ATIC's support, the educational program
of "train.
ing and debunkj.ng" outJ..ined •above might be required for a minimum of
(

one and one-half to two years.

At the end of this time, the dangers

related to "flying saucers" should have been greatly reduced if not
eliminated.

Cooperation from other military services and agencies

concerned (e.g., Federal Civil Defense Administration) would be a
necessity.

In investigating significant cases ( such as the Trementon, '

Utah, sighting), controlled experiments might be :.req~ired.

An example

- 22 NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 70

SSIFIED

•
•

would be the photographing of "pillow balloons" at different distances
under similar weather conditions at the site.
The help of one or two psychologfsts and writers and a subcontractor
to produce traini.ng films would bo necessary in addlt:i.on.

The Panel

considered that AJIC's efforts, temporarily expanded as necessary,
could bo most useful in implementin.g any action taken as a result of·
i..ts :recommendations.

Experience and records in ATIC would be of value

i.n both the public educational and service training program envisaged.
Dr. Robertson at least was of the opinion that after public gullibility
lessened and the service organizations, such as ADC, had been trained
to sift out the more readily explained spurious sightings, thero would
still be a rolo for a very modest-sized ATIC section to cope with the
residuum of items of possible scientific intelligence value.
/

This

section should concentr.ate on energetically following_ up (perhaps on
'

'

,,~...,""'1:•'~t"~'""~~,....._~.,,..............., ~

the advice of qualified Air.Force Scientific Advisory Board members)
-

~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'11..,,.,,~;.-/:(,,"_,,,J...,•.._.,.,.,,~t...... J.....,,,,,><»>,,.. ,,,,,,,.,,..,~).1>\·~•.:,,.•-.;;'\/,'-j,l"m+"'\'C/l",'f',~. . . . . . ..,"1.,1111.,;,'!"#'llh,;)~-,O~~'•:•••~\~""""

those cases which seemed to indicate the evidence of unconventional
enemy artifacts.

Reports of such artifacts would be expected to

arise mainly from Western outposts in far closer proximity to the
Iron Curtain than Lubbock, Texas!
UNOFFICIAL INVESTIGATING GROUPS
-----------The Panel took cognizance of the existence of such groups as the
°Civi1ian Flying Saucer Investigators" (Los Angeles) and the "Aerial
Phenomena. Research Organization (Wisconsin)".

It was believed that

such organizations should be watched because of their potentially

- 23 - ,

NW 90306"
Docld:34714841 Page 71

great influence on mass thinking if widespread sightings should occur.
The apparent irresponsibili:\:.y and the possible use of such groups
f c,r suhversive pu.:·posos should be kept in mind.
INCRJ•.:A SB; IN NUMJ3I~R OF SIGHTINGS

. The consensus of the Panel was, based upon the history of the
subject, that the number of sightings could be reasonably expected
•

to increase agnin this summer.

•

•

... 24 -

NW 90306"
Docld:34714841. Page 72

•

'

I

•

• TAB A

REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC PANEL
ON
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
1.

Pursuant to the requost

·---:--~~, th~. undorsigned Panel of Scientific Consultants has met to
evaluate any possible threat to national security posed by Unidentified
F'lying Objects ("Flying Saucers"), and to make recommendations thereon.

The Panel has recoived the evidence as presented by cognizant intelli­
gence agencies, primarily the Air. Technical Intelligence Center, and has
reviewod a solectj_on of the best documented incidents.
2.

As a result of its considerations, the Panel concludes:
a. -That the evidence presented on Unidentified Flying

Objects shows no indication that these phenomena constitute
a direct physfcal threat to national security.
,·

We firmly believe that there is no residuum of cases which indicates
phenomena which are attributable to foreign artifacts capable of hostile
acts, and that there is no evidence that the phenomena indicates a need
f <>r the revision of current scientific concepts.

3. The Panel further concludes:
a.

That the continued emphasis on the reporting of

these phenomena does, in these parlous, times, result i.n a

threat to the orde1·ly functioning of the protective organs
of the body politic.
We cite as examples the clogging'of channels of communication by irrelevant
reports, the dangP-r of being led by continued false alarms to ignore real

NW 90306"
Docld:347148-41 Page 73

◄

1

I

C

indications of hostilo action, and the cultivation o:f a morbid national
psychology in which skillful hostile propaganda could induce hysterical
behavior and harmful distrust of duly constituted authority.
4.

In o,.der n1oat o.ffoot1v•l)" to •trongthon tho no.tionil facil1tioa

for the.-timely repognition and the appropriate handling of true indications
of hostile

action, and to minimize the concomitont dangers alluded to

.above, the Panel reconmiends:
a.

That the national security agencies take immediate steps

to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects or the special status they
.
have been given and tbe aura of mystery they have unfortunately
acquired;

b.

That the national security agencies institute policies

on intelligence, training, nnd public educ3.tion designed to prepare
the material defenses and the morale of tho country to recognize
most promptly and to react most effectively to true indications
of hostile intent or action.

•·

We suggest that these aims may be achieved by an integrated program
designed to reassure the public of the total lack of evidence of·inimical
\

~orces behind the phenomena, to train personnel to recognize and reject
false indications quickly and e~fectively, and to strengthen regular
channels for the evaluation of and prompt reaction to true indications
of host:j_le measures.

s H.P. Robertson Chairman
California Institute of Technology

_

.
Luis W.
~lvarez __
University of California
__;;;...

V. Berkner
Associated Universities, Inc.

/s/ S. A. Go"!,ldsmit
,.
Brookhaven National Laboratories
Thornton Pae
Johns Hopkins University

NW 90306"
Doclrl:34714841 Page 74

SiFIED
TABB

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ON

UNIDENTIFIED
FLYING OBJECTS
•

.14 - 17 January 1953
EVIDENCE PRESENTED

_,_

I

■

1.

Seventy-five case histories of sightings 1951 - 1952 (sele~ted by
ATIC as those best documented).

2.· ATIC Status and Progress Reports of Project GRUOOE and Project
BLUE BOOK (code names for ATIC study of subject).
•

J. _Pr~gress Repo:r:-ts of Projec~ STORK - - · _)·---··---., ·-·---·=·-·=-•..
. _ _ _. .,,

L}.

,,

--1;"!',J

•contract work supporting ATIC •

Summary Report of Sightings at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.

5. Report of USAF Research Center, Cambridge, Mass., Investigation of
"Green FirE'ball" Phenomena (Project TWlNKLE).
6. Outline.of Investigation of U.F.o.•s Proposed by Kirtland Air Force
Base (Project POUNCE).

7. Motion Picture Films of sightings at Trem,nton 1 Utah, 2 July 1952
and Great Falls, Montana, August 1950.

8.

Summary Report of 89 selected cases of sightings of various
categories (Formations, Blinking Lights, Hovering, etc.).

9. Draft of mo.nuel: "How to Make a FLYOBRPT", prepared at ATIC.
10.

Chart Showing Plot of Geographic Location of Unexplained Sightings
in the United States during 1952.

11.

Chart Showing Balloon Launching Sites in the United States.

12.

Charts Showing Selected Actual Balloon Flight Paths and Relation
to Reported Sightings.
.

.

lJ. . Charts Showing Frequency of Reports of Sightings, 1948·- 1952..
14.

Charts Showing Categories or Explanations or Sightings. •

15. Kodachrome Transparencies of Polyethylene Film Ba.lloons iri Bright
Sunlight Showing High Reflectivity•

.

• N'W 90.3.{)fi
Doclrl:34714841 Page 75

..

.16.

Motion picture of seagulls in bright sunlight showing high reflectivity.

17.

Intelligence Reports Relating to u.s.s.R. _Interest in U. s. Sightings.

18.

Samples of Official USAF Reporting Forms and Copies ot Pertinent
Air Force, Army and Navy Orders Relating. to Subject.

19.

Sample Po

20.

"Variations in Radar Coverage", JANP 101 (Manual illustrating unusual
operating characteristics of Service radar).

21.

Miscellaneous official letters and foreign intelligence reports
dealing with subject.
•

22.

Copies of popular published works dealing with subject {articles
in periodicals, nawspaper clippings and books).·

ethylene "Pillow" Balloon (54 inches square).

•

•

.

... 2 -

NW 90306"

Docld:34714841 Page 76

.

REPCBT Cl! m SCIDTIFIC PANBL
.

ON

tmIDDTifIED FI:!IliG CBJECTS

•

.'
~

~

,(

~

t

•

'

... \ ~· ~ '

l7'Janunry 1953

. l. • The undersigned Panel of Scientific Consultants baa met lit···
the requeat ot the Goverment to evaluate a-ny poaaible threat to
national security posed by Unidentified Flying ObJeota ( 'TJ.y:Lng

Saucers"), and ·to make recame:pda·t:tont The Pan~l bas received the
!? \ ::: ••
evidence •• presented by cognizant Governmental agencies, pr:1marily •·~ .. ;·
\ { ·
, the United States Air.Force, and has :reviewed a aelection ot th' ... •. . ..
! · •. · · . . . . '., .,.. • • 'but documented incidents ., •
•·
·"'
'
.. .
. . •. .
'..'
.
.
I
,,- ,•. •:. • ·,: ... ••• • 2.· As a result of its considerations, the Panel. copca,µdeas
i

• ·,.

,

'

'

•

,

•

'

'l