Documents / Report

Air Force Project Blue Book Special Report 14 (Hynek's annotated copy)

Center for UFO Studies · 139 pages · text by OCR

This is the July 1966 third edition of Dr. Leon Davidson's "Flying Saucers: An Analysis of the Air Force Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14", published by Ramsey-Wallace Corp. It reproduces early Air Force press releases, the 1953 CIA panel report, the 1966 Blue Book release and the full text of the May 1955 Special Report No. 14 with its tables and codes. Davidson also gives his view that the CIA was responsible for much saucer publicity.

  • p. 2 …Samford at the Pentagon on July 29, 1952, at the height of the Washington "flap", in…
  • p. 5 …Al Chop at the Pentagon A.F. Press Desk several times, and examined the paraphrased version…
  • p. 7 …USAF, to be used at the Pentagon Building in Washington in answering inquiries, and is available…
  • p. 8 …At Room 2E-765 in the Pentagon, a copy of the summary reports and opinions concerning…
  • p. 30 …I went over to the Pentagon where the scientist in charge of this bureau immediately pulled…
  • p. 48 …Write to the Secretary of the Air Force, Pentagon Building, Washington 25, D.C., and ask…
  • p. 138 …AIR FORCE 29 July 1952 - 4:00 p.m.- Room 3E-869, The Pentagon Participating: Major…
## CONCLUSIONS

It can never be absolutely proven that "flying saucers" do not exist. This would be true if the data obtained were to include complete scientific measurements of the attributes of each sighting, as well as complete and detailed descriptions of the objects sighted. It might be possible to demonstrate the existence of "flying saucers" with data of this type, IF they were to exist.

Although the reports considered in this study usually did not contain scientific measurements of the attributes of each sighting, it was possible to establish certain valid conclusions by the application of statistical methods in the treatment of the data. Scientifically evaluated and arranged, the data as a whole did not show any marked patterns or trends. The inaccuracies inherent in this type of data, in addition to the incompleteness of a large proportion of the reports, may have obscured any patterns or trends that otherwise would have been evident. This absence of indicative relationships necessitated an exhaustive study of selected facets of the data in order to draw any valid conclusions.

A critical examination of the distributions of the important characteristics of sightings, plus an intensive study of the sightings evaluated as UNKNOWN, led to the conclusion that a combination of factors, principally the reported maneuvers of the objects and the unavailability of supplemental data such as aircraft flight plans or balloon-launching records, resulted in the failure to identify as KNOWNS most of the reports of objects classified as UNKNOWNS.

An intensive study, aimed at finding a verified example of a "flying saucer" or at deriving a verified model or models of "flying saucers" (as defined on Page 1), led to the conclusion that neither goal could be attained using the present data.

It is emphasized that there was a complete lack of any valid evidence consisting of physical matter in any case of a reported unidentified aerial object.

Thus, the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small, since the most complete and reliable reports from the present data, when isolated and studied, conclusively failed to reveal even a rough model, and since the data as a whole failed to reveal any marked patterns or trends.

Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

Cases discussed

About this file

Report, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. The text was read from the page images by an OCR model; expect the odd misread word. 139 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.