Documents / Official release
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.
“O'Brien”9 pages
.,~ ~ --~-, •. ,JI\~~a....... ;.\.f21l~J' II: COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF PJJUi!..
GENERAL
The Panel Members woro impressed (ac have been others, includ
ing ___- pe;,:.sonnol) in the lack of sound c!.3.ta in the great m.u.jority
of' case histories; also, in the lack o:f spocdy foJ.low-up due primarily
to the modest sizo and lirnited facilities of tho ATIC section concernad.
Among the case histories of significant sightings discussed in detail
were the following:
Bellefontaine, Ohio (1 August 1952); Tremonton, Utah (2 July 1952) ;.
Great Falls, Montana (15 Aug~st 1950); Yaak, Montana (l September
1952}; Washington, D. C. area (19 July 1952); and Haneda A.F.B.*
Japan (5 August 1952), Port Huron, Michigan (29 July 1952); and
Presque Isle, Maine (10 October 1952).
After review and discussion of these cases (and about l others,
in less detail), the Panel concluded that reasonable
~~~~-~e ~~~~~~$~~.,~~~~:~,,~~~~ ,.:~~~in~_,g~c;!}!S ,~
method it could be induced en additional data) that other cases
...................,• ..,............,},~,:f'l.'\\.d,..,'t..,\,J,i.,,i~''•,':j,:•1•,••,,."'~•~,......~"t~/--·
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 -
UNC SSIFIEONW 90306" Official release, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 85 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.