Documents / Official release

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

U.S. Department of War · 1967-04-17 · 85 pages · text from the file's own layer

This U.S. Air Force file gathers records of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project Blue Book, dated 1965 to 1969. It holds Major General LeBailly's 1965 request for a review, meeting records from Wright-Patterson AFB, and Secretary Harold Brown's approval of a university scientific study. There are also 1969 letters praising the Condon Report, a 1968 NICAP request for records, a 1967 attendee list for a meeting with Dr. James McDonald, and a copy of the 1953 Robertson Panel report.

From the source:Release of 2026-07-10 Incident: 4/17/67, Various. This file documents the 1966-1967 deliberations and recommendations of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Scientific Advisory Board’s Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project Blue Book. Project Blue Book was a 1952-1969 USAF program to investigate the nature and origin of unidentified flying objects (UFO). The Committee recommended that the USAF contract a scientific team composed of university-affiliated representatives to investigate selected UFO sightings. The USAF subsequently adopted the Committee’s recommendation.

  • p. 9 …Gener~, the concept of using uni'VersitteE(or individuals tran universities) is good. Specifically, however, :there…
  • p. 33 …On 5 May 1967, members of the University of Colorado UFO Investigat:i.ng Committee presented…
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 10 August 1966
SUBJECT: Visit by Mr. William P. Wietzel, NICAP
1. Today I was visited by Mr. William Wietzel, an investigator for the
National Investigating Cormnittee on Aerial Phenomena. Mr. Wietzel did
not have an appointment but just dropped in, presuma.bly to discuss the
in April 1966.
report of the SAB Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project "Blue ok." This
we did; however, the discussion soon deteriorated to an ind nt of the
way in which Major Quintella had handled the Ravenna, Ohio, 0 siting
With regard to this particular siting, the main criticism
of Major Q;uintella seems to be that his interviews with the people who
had sited the UFO were restricted to about three mi.nutes each via the
telephone. However, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that
Major Quintella did visit the scene of the Ravenna siting at a later date.
2. I neither concurred with Mr. Wietzel's opinion of Major Quintella nor
d.id I defend Major Quintella strongly. I did point out that, hopefully,
the university teams now being formed will provide scientific information
that can eliminate the type of personality conflict that apparently exists
between NICAP and Major Quintella.
3. There was some additional discussion of the pertinent information con
cerning the Ravenna siting of which Mr. Wietzel was a principal NICAP
investigator. He has completed a lengthy and voluminous report of this
siting that is impressive in size if not in content. I asked Mr. Wietzel
if NICA.P investigated every UFO siting as thoroughly as they had apparently
investigated this one. The obvious answer was no because NICAP has
limited resources. I then pointed out that the Air Force also has limited
resources and cannot spend as much time on each UFO siting as it would like.
We parted amiably at an impasse. He did not convince me, and I certainly
did not convince him.
HARO A. STEINER, Lt Colonel, USAF
Assistant Secretary
USAF Scientific Advisory Board
NW 90306"
Docld:.34714841 Page 36

Cases discussed

About this file

Official release, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 85 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.