Australian Dept of Defense Scientific and Intel Aspects of the UFO Problem

Text

This text came with the file. It may have mistakes. When the text and the image disagree, the image is right.

7.
28 S4-pte1nber 1965 Pfaj, Gen. Ll'Bailly, Dintctor of Information,
formally requested tho Air Force Scientific Advisory Board to
review Project i3Lm: BOOK.
The review aug::;eated tha.t the lirni tc>i!
Project BLUE BO JK staff 11.nd the official inves ti,gating of ricer~
did not possess the tcchnicul competence Lo properly identify lne
phenomena and that university tea.ms should be appoi.nted to
invl'stigo.te selec tcd sightings.
This cone lusion wn.s supported b:•
the Rouse Armed Servic1~s Commit.tee which met on April 5Lh 1966
in the shndo.._ or a pub lie furore consequent to the USAF idf. nti ::'), ng
the ,rn 11-public ised Michigan sightings as b1d.ng si.amp gas.
The
Colarado University 1,ns s1?lecte-d for the task and Dr Ed.re.rd U. Ccndon
appointed to le,~d the project with o.n in .. tia.l allocation of $Jl) ,OOC
later raised to $525,000.
19.
The Colorado project became di!!Cr•}di tad when Dr Condon
atr..ted publicly un 25th Janu.:i.ry 1967 that "my a.ttitude rigt..t Go,..
ie thot there's nothing to it, but I'm not supposed to reath a
conclusion for another ycar 1'.
The reve&l ing of a memorandum
outlining a method to trick the public, ~ombined with & grnoral
dis!la.ti:,fact:;.on ~t Conrlon' s biassed ai.ti tude J led to the dismissal
and re:,ignation of mo•t of the staff &ftrr most of the investigations
had been made but no L compll!tcly written up.
The fioal report o.f' 9(:}
poges lacked coherence,
Condon's conclusions Wl'rc ~t variance with
individual staff conclusions, although only Condon's conclusions were
J>Ub lie ised.
Aa a result of the Condon report, USAF c losi!d do,.n
Project BLCE BOOK shortly before the .\merican Association for the
Adv1rncerucn i, of' Sc iea1.:o held a special mc(iting 1,o counter-act th~
effect of the Condon report.
The Chairman of the Special (;orumittuP 1
Dr Thornton Pa.gl?, was ono of tbe signatories to the Rob£rtson r(~por t.
20.
Dr J. Allen Hynl?k, l!cientitic consultant to Project Blue
Book 1948-69 1 bogo.n his association with n convicticm that 11.ll
sightings could be conv~ntionally explainud,
Even though doubts
grew in his mind, he found hjmself obliged to support offjcial USAF
public policy.
Since 1966, ho-.;ever, he has become more outspol,en
against the l;SAF attitude and has as.! i!!lcd ·to convcme both
congressional hearings and scientific syr:1.pos in on the subj cc t.
AHhough ini Li 1ll ly :mpport i.ng the Condon Comrai ttee he became
di£illusiancd and critical of it with thP pnssng~ of time.
It is
quite clear that Dr Hynek along with many o thcr reputable sc i(!ntis ts
do not accept the USAP explrmation of misidentifies t.ion, hyst.cr in or
National ~r~ives of Australia
NAA: A13693, 3092/2/00_0