DOW-UAP-D092, Department of the Air Force Committee to Review Project Bluebook, 1966-1967

An April 1966 meeting was convened specifically to determine how to implement recommendations from the Scientific Advisory Board committee reviewing Project Blue Book.

To discuss how best to implement the recommendations made by the SAB Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project Blue Book

The February 1966 review brought together scientists and Air Force personnel including Brian O’Brien, Jesse Orlansky, Carl Sagan, Willis Ware, and Project Blue Book chief Hector Quintanilla.

To review the resources, methods and findings of Air Force Project Blue Book

Secretary of the Air Force Harold Brown accepted the committee’s recommendations and directed arrangements for a scientific team to investigate selected sightings in depth.

arrangements made for a scientific team to investigate in depth certain selected sightings

Implementation discussions treated public relations and university participation as major practical problems, including whether institutions would accept government UFO work.

Since we are dealing with an emotional phenomenon

A May 1966 memorandum recorded mixed reactions from university presidents and considered how to approach institutions for independent scientific investigations.

mixed reactions to its request to universities

Brown’s formal memorandum recommended contracting with a scientific team rather than relying only on the existing Air Force investigation.

contract for a scientific team to investigate in depth certain selected reported sightings

The Air Force stated that it had investigated 9,267 reports through June 30, 1965, of which 663 remained unexplained; those figures describe case disposition and do not establish an extraordinary cause.

a total of 9267 reports had been investigated by the Air Force. Of these 9267 reports, 663 cannot be explained

J. Allen Hynek was identified as Project Blue Book’s scientific consultant and as willing to assist a review panel.

Doctor J. Allen Hynek who is the Chairman of the Dearborn Observatory

A 1969 letter described the Condon Report as the type of independent study the 1966 committee had recommended and cited the National Academy of Sciences endorsement.

The fine endorsement of his work by the National Academy of Sciences confirms that Condon has done what was needed

The appended Robertson Panel material criticized the lack of sound data and slow follow-up in most case histories, attributing part of the problem to limited Air Technical Intelligence Center staffing.

lack of sound data in the great majority of case histories

The panel rejected a contractor’s conclusion that the Tremonton film showed self-luminous objects, listing reflection, camera, and analytical shortcomings.

they could not accept the conclusions reached

The panel found no direct threat in the sightings but warned that misidentification, overloaded reporting channels, and public hysteria could impair air-defense intelligence.

evidence of any direct threat from these sightings was wholly lacking

The report said mutual radar interference could appear as high-speed tracks or dots and probably accounted for a number of UFO reports.

pulse signal from station A may be picked up on the screen of station B and show as a high-speed track

The panel rejected an asserted UFO–cosmic-ray correlation after attributing the Los Alamos counter behavior to instrumental effects.

recorded data were undoubtedly due to instrumental effects

The Robertson Panel concluded that the evidence showed no direct physical threat and no indication of hostile foreign artifacts in the reviewed residual cases.

no indication that these phenomena constitute a direct physical threat to national security

The panel recommended removing UFOs’ special aura of mystery and using intelligence training and public education to improve recognition of genuine hostile activity.

strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given