🧵I transcribed page 7 through 16 of the Australian National Archives David Grusch mentioned yesterday on the Hill. See @UAPWatchers post for direct link to the scanned images. May ’71 — SUMMARY The early analyses of UFO reports by USAF intelligence indicated that real phenomena were being reported which had flight characteristics so far in advance of U.S. aircraft that only an extra-terrestrial origin could be envisaged. A government agency, which later events indicated to be the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI), studied the UFO reports with the intention of determining the UFO propulsion methods. At that time, OSI was responsible for intelligence on foreign research and development in nuclear and missile matters. 1.The CIA became alarmed at the overloading of military communications during the mass sightings of 1952 and considered the possibility that the USSR may take advantage of such a situation. As a result, OSI, acting through the Robertson-panel meeting of mid-January 1953, persuaded the USAF to use Project BLUE BOOK as a means of publicly “debunking” UFOs, and at a later stage to allocate funds for the Avro advanced “saucer” aircraft and the launching of a crash programme into anti-gravity power. To initiate such programmes decades ahead of normal scientific development would indicate that the U.S. Government acknowledged the existence of advanced “aircraft” which presumably used a gravity-control method of propulsion. An additional motivation could have been the fear that the USSR would achieve this goal before the U.S. 2.By erecting a facade of ridicule, the U.S. hoped to allay public alarm, reduce the possibility of the Soviet taking advantage of UFO mass sightings for either psychological or actual warfare purposes, and act as a cover for the real U.S. programme of developing vehicles that emulate UFO performances. The RAAF, together with many other countries of the world, give credence only to the USAF public facade and appear to have uncritically accepted the associated information. This information has been widely discredited by retiring U.S. service personnel formerly engaged on UFO investigations, as well as by scientists and private citizens. 3.The conclusions of the Condon report conflict with its own contents and have been discredited by many reputable scientists, including the UFO scientific consultant to the USAF. In accordance with the recommendations of the Condon report, Project BLUE BOOK was terminated, but presumably this would have little effect on the main programme. 4.It would appear wrong for Australia to remain ignorant of the true situation. We lack an intelligence viewpoint that can assess the nature and possible consequences of the problem, a scientific viewpoint that could derive scientifically valid data from the reports, and a public relations viewpoint that can honestly satisfy public interest. To overcome these deficiencies in the Australian investigation of UFOs, it would seem that a strong case exists for the acceptance of the RAF suggestion that another government department assume responsibility for the investigation and analysis of UFO reports.

19.The Colorado project became discredited when Dr Condon stated publicly on 25th January 1967 that “my attitude right now is that there’s nothing to it, but I’m not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year”. The revealing of a memorandum outlining a method to trick the public, combined with a general dissatisfaction at Condon’s biassed attitude, led to the dismissal and resignation of most of the staff after most of the investigation had been made but not completely written up. The final report of 965 pages lacked coherence. Condon’s conclusions were at variance with individual staff conclusions, although only Condon’s conclusions were publicised. As a result of the Condon report, USAF closed down Project BLUE BOOK shortly before the American Association for the Advancement of Science held a special meeting to counter-act the effect of the Condon report. The Chairman of the Special Committee, Dr Thornton Page, was one of the signatories to the Robertson report. 20.Dr J. Allen Hynek, scientific consultant to Project Blue Book 1948–69, began his association with a conviction that all sightings could be conventionally explained. Even though doubts grew in his mind, he found himself obliged to support official USAF public policy. Since 1966, however, he has become more outspoken against the USAF attitude and has assisted to convene both congressional hearings and scientific symposia on the subject. Although initially supporting the Condon Committee, he became disillusioned and critical of it with the passage of time. It is quite clear that Dr Hynek, along with many other reputable scientists, does not accept the USAF explanation of misidentification, hysteria or hoax.