THIS FILE CONTAINS PAGES REPRODUCED FROM A BADLY FADED OR ILLEGIBLE SOURCE. SCANNING THE PAGES AT A HIGHER RESOLUTION WILL NOT IMPROVE THEIR LEGIBILITY. Revtsed Jan 81 CONFIDENTIAL Part No DEPARf~'ltNT OF DEFENCE 'J'bi:; cut1er s tube used for official file !lerils recorded witb Austra/i,m Arcbiues; Furm Numbt:r AR 113 is to be used for workmg papers. INVESTIGATION OF FLYING SAUCERS- Referred to Referred to [i/,g.glt / ARCHIVAL ACTION () CONFIDENTIAL INSTRUCTIONS ON THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE Fl LING OF CORRES- AND THE HANDLING OF Fl LES ARE CONTAINED IN GEN MAN 3 AND SINGLE SERVICE MANUALS. File Number CLOSELY RELATED FILES Australian Government DOCUMENT REMOVAL ADVICE Series number: A703, Control symbol: 554/1/30 PART 3 Barcode: 12055850 Folio/ s numbered 15 folios dated 1982-1983 have been removed from this item because they, are exempt from public access under section 33(1) _ Archives Act 1983, [ ] are vulnerable to loss, or [ ] have been referred to another agency for advice, or [X] not in the open period as defined in the Archives Act 1983. further information about the removal of folios from this item, please ask a reference officer. Removed by: Position or designation: APS6 When completed place this Advice on the file from which the documents have been removed. Place a copy of it with the removed documents. Revised S ,p 77 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE Subsequent correspondence has been placed on SECURITY CLASSI F ICATION Revised Aug 79 .. _MEMORANDUM Write or Print Clearly Date References For Informatio n Signature ~/ Appointment SECURITY CLASSI F ICATI ON TIPI LYIUG Jllt CTS 1. n d i ocuao d , in reoponao to a question rr.ioed by t c ~ocr tary you ought co~onto on tho v li~ity of the ovc nctropn or icle e 1ng with the invo tigltion by tho of Uni entifi d Flying bjecte (UFu). 2 . I hLv c r t uinod fro the irector of ir orce Intcllieonce and uecuri ty ( r..,) thot the F curr ntly inveatignteo report of v oightinga within u tr ia. uoh inv tig tio a un ortuk n , o a a cond uty only by RJ o tion Intolliacnce ftic r a ( IO) ct the L se receiving t he ro ort. 3. .a.he I i e tooked with isauinB o. reporti fore to nny ca ber of tho public ol inling Ul aightil:lB nn , followi -1'!: oceipt, con uct locnl illv atieation of th si ting. c 1 inv tigation lllcluJe the collection and alyois ot rolcv t data on loc 1 cotcorologicn1 con itionn, otar positions, at llite novem nta d civil/oilitnry ircr t ov nto. vor , ch reported oightin!; r quiro npproxm t lY thr e hours 1nvoot1 tion. In ud 1 tio11, further inv :Jtigation ey bo co id red nccoooary o two to tiro, an the p rson reporting n UF l ighting oey be interview d by the FI / ( 11 conplcted UF l rcwrte arc fo1~ardcd to .FIS here y~ ~ 1cy aro Liaintninod on 1o l d u d by tho Porcit;n Liaison /"> ~ fie or (F.u ) to pro u.oo n ye rl,y igh.tiJ:lg m~ Little '\~ / ~ Jdi tion invcatigation io poo ibl beyond tl' t con uctcd nt ~ -Y D eo level. Ilot11 n 1 00 nd 150 UFO reports (ref orr d to r 'V' ~.;-. / k-Unu unl rial ~igbtine or U by th .R.i. F) e ceivod oh cr p rY" _.jl/'yonr and, goin, nr de JJ. t ui th by tho L ao ono of hio ~ ~ ~..,PvJ' """.no con ry duti ~ ~ ~ t~ 5 . hilat it io thor oro truo to a fron th foregoing ....Jl.-' ~ that UP .1nvestigntiono p -time occuoo.tion by fourteen l) ~-fie rs d one nior R F Inte1ligcnc ffic r, it ic n ~ ro s over t te ant to t t t net-war of .? officora!, co tins thoua ~ld of doll o y r, is on. cd in invo tig ting Ui r porto. /6. Furthermore, 6 . }Urthermore, the ~ticle incorrectly alle_es that additional expenditure is incurred by the RJu~' in the inv ~t~gation of U reports. There is no additional provision ~e e in the Budget for this ctivity which-as st~ tee... previously, is undertaken as a duty of a secondary nature only by Permanent .ir ~orce Officers alread~ '~1aged in other dutieP. Notwithstanding this fact, the investigation of U20 reports does create an additional 1-1orkload. 7. You may wish to note that the U~ .L., .r o~, _rmn referred to in the article w-a~ the 'l?roject Blue Book' 8-f 'vondon ..... eport' investigated U J reports from 1953 to 1965 r-nd concluded that nothing has come from our tudy of UF ~ that hBs .udbd to scientific knowledge.' Consequently the u~AF uithdreu frot all investi ations of u . 8. I am advised thnt the l~ttcr part of the news;aper ~rticle, beginning from the mention of the 1953 statement by the then l!inister of .. ir, is a condensed version of a prepared PJ ~public relations handout concernine UFUs. (Air Porce Office) 16 October 1981 oee Distribution List UAS INVESTIGATION -SPACE DE .RI~ RE-ENTRY 1. As you are aware, the recent re-entry of a meteorite near Marble Bar at the same time as Cosmos 434 was due to re-enter, caused considerable confusion. The statement by the Perth Observatory that it was nuclear powered, created great, and unwanted, media interest. Department of Defence meeting last week discussed procedures for reporting of space vehicle re-entry. As you are aware, the two main sources of information on re-entries available at base level are the D~TO Sattellite Bulletin and the NASA Spacewarn Bulletin. These two sources do not, however, contain any classified information; this is held by JIO. Similarly, JIO have access to information concerning nuclear powered satellites and know l-lell in advance of any likely re-entry of a nuclear po ered satellite. Department of Defence ~OPs for reporting of re-entries are now being revised, with JIO being tasked as the central agency for the decisions on satellite re-entry. 3 . The RAAF UAS investigation/reporting chain is to remain unchanged. Investigating officers are, however, requested to refrain from putting a possible name to any suspected space debris re-entry, as often the exact debris cannot be identified from unclassified records. Investigatinp officers are to classify the reports as 'probable space debris' or 'probable meteorite' as applicable. (Bpace debris usually has an orange/red tail while a meteorite often has a blue/ green f i:inged 'tail'). Hopefully by not speculating upon the exact nature of the debris, undue media interest can be avoided. (I. S . FRAJ.lE) .3quadron Leader for Chief of Air Staff Distribution List: Headquarters RAAF Base Amberley ( IliTELLO) Headquarters Base Butter~orth (II~ELLO) Headquarters RAAF Base Darwin (INTELLO) Headquarters RAAF Base Edinburgh (o~o) School of Air Navigation RAAF Base East Sale (FLTLT Gordon) No 5 Squadron RAAF Base Fairbairn {INTj;LLO) Base Squadron JLtAF Base Laverton (oATCO) RAAF School of Languages RAAF Base Point Cook (Sr.NLDR McCarthy) No 2 Flyinp Training School RAAF Base .?earce (u~.., Officer) Headquarters RAAF Base Richmond (INTELLO) Headquarters RAAF Base TO'\msville (IlrrELLO) Base Squadron RAAF Base Wagga (COBS) Headquarters RAAF Base Williamtown ( Itr.iELLO) For Information: Headquarters Operational Command (SOINTEL) Headquarters Support Comcand (SOINTEL) MINUTE PAPER (AIR FORCE OFFICE) ~ ~ Reference554 1 PT3(30) Subject: INVESTIGATION OF UNUSU=.JJ-~n..J,J.RIAL SIGHTINGS (UAS) 1 . My Directorate is charged with the responsibility for UAS investigation and reporting. It has been a contentious issue for ~. many years with opinion varying from a questioning of the need '>q~ for monitoring such sightings, to the organizational area most appropriately placed to deal with them. I understand that the RAAF has endeavoured to rid itself of the burden in the past, but has met with resistance as to which other authority would be prepared to assume the task. A recent Ministerial enquiry has prompted me to once more take up the issue. This particular enquiry, from a Mr B. Wright -a regular enquirer -has involved one of my SQNLDRs in investigations for several days, and has involved other Services and the Dept of Transport. am of the opinion that in the present economic climate and RAAF manpower/workload limitations, the efforts expended, results obtained and administrative burden involved in providing a service' for the general public is difficult to justify. Wide publicity was given to the USAF 'Project Blue Book' study of UAS from 1953 to 1965 and to the subsequent suspension of investigations after the study, known as the Condon Report, concluded that no conclusive evidence of extraterrestial activity had been gained. The Condon Report conclusions and recommendations are attached as Enclosure 1 . 3 . Generally our dealings with UAS involve: Well meaning civilians who genuinely report UAS; UAS/UFO organizations, both in Australia and overseas, who seek a considerable amount of detailed information (often not readily available); school children seeking material for projects; semi-cranks' who are constant letter writers on the subject, often through ministerial channels; and e . 'cranks' who are readily identifiable, and are treated as such. review of Australian reported sightings has revealed no further substantiation of UAS and has only served to validate the USAF ' Condon Report' conclusions. On average, each investigation requires three hours work; not only by Formation Intelligence Officers, but by other specialist branch personnel, eg, Meteorology, Navigation and Air Traffic Contrc l . All these branches are significantly undermanned and UAS investigation,for no visible result, is an unwelcome burden. 6 . The only advantage I see in retaining UAS investigation responsibilities are: it allows a security oversight of unusual events which, on the odd occasion, may have some military implication; b . it provides 'cover' if we wish to investigate some incident, not necessarily related, in more detail; c . it provides some minor PR advantages (questionable) to the RAAF. 7. I seek your views on whether the RAAF should continue to carry the responsibility for the investigation of UAS. It would be my recommendation that the RAAF cease routine UAS investigation and recording and adopt a policy of pursuing only those incidents which have a direct Defence interest. All reports deemed not to be Defence related should be diverted to responsible civilian organizations which maintain a continuing interest in the subject. For the RAAF to maintain even a reduced form of reporting and recording would require maintenance of the existing system, as each report would still require a degree of investigation and recording at Formation level along with a measure of recording at DEFAIR. Submitted for your consideration. Enclosure: 1. (~/ ~G.A. PERSKE) Condon Report Conclusions and Recommendations ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT COMMAND ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VICTORIA BARRACKS MELBOURNE VIC 3004 Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory on Unidentified Flying Objects (Robertson Panel), 14-18 January 1953 ..... 905 Natural Philosophy of Flying Saucers ..... 922 X Editors and Authors, Staff of the Colorado Project CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Edward U. Condon We believe that the existing record and the results of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects of the Univer- sity of Color:~do, which are presented in detail in subsequent of this report, support Lhe conclusions and recom- mendations which follow. As indicated by its title, Lhe emphasis of this study has been on at1empting to Je:~rn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothin has come from the stu o s m e past 21 years t at as ad c to sc1en c knowledge. CarefUl cons1deratJon of the record as 1t IS , vail:~ bro 3 1 can no e ustJ e m e expectatJon at sc1ence will e adya ced thereb . lt has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there bas been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, at- mospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries. Thls conclusion is so important, and the public seems in gen- eral to have so little understanding of bow scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable. Each person who sets out to make a career of scientific research, chooses a general field of broad specialization in which to acquire pro- ficiency. Within that .field he looks for specific fields in which To do this be keeps abreast of the published scientific literature, attends scientific meetings, where reports on current progress are given, and energetically discusses his interests those of his colleagues both face-to-face and by correspond- ence with them. He is motivated by an active curiosity about nature and by a personal desire to make a contribution to sci- ~nce. He is constantly probing for error and incompleteness w the efforts Lhat have been made in his fields of interest, and looking for new ideas a~out new ways to attack new problems. F_rom th1s effort he arn ves a t person:~! decisions as to wbere hts o~n effort can be most fruitful. These decisions are per- s.on311 10 the sense that he must estimate his own intellectual l!m1tat1ons! and the limitations inherent in the working situa- tion .m wh1ch he ~n?s himself, incl.uding limits on the support o_f h1s wor~, or h1s lnv<;>lve.me!l~ w1th other pre-existing scien- ~c c<;>n~m1tments. Whlle mthv1duaJ errors of judgment may an~e, tt tS g~ne~ally no_t true that all of the scientists wbo are act1veJy cultivatmg a g1ven field of science are wrong for very .Even c.onceding that the entire body of "official" science 10 error for a time, we believe that there is no better ~a~ !O co~t erro r than to give free reig n to the ideas of md!v1dua.l sc_1ent1sts to make decisions as to the duections in wh1ch sc1~nt.Jfic progress is most likely to be made. For legal work sens!ble people seck an attorney, and for medical treat- ment seos1ble people .see~ a qualified physician. The nation's sure~t guarantee of sc1ent1fic excellence is to leave the decision- !flaki~g J?rOCess to the individual and collective judgment of Its SCientists. Scientists are no respecters of authority. Our conclusion that study o~ ~FO reports is not likely to advance science will not b~ un~nt1caUy accepted by them. Nor should it be, nor do we to be. For .scientists, it is our hope that the d etailed analytical presenta tiOn of what we were able to do and of what we were unable t? do, will assis~ them in deciding whether or n~t they ~gree wJth ~ur conclusiOns. Our hope is that the de- of th1s report w11J he lp other scientists in seeing what the problems are and. the difficulties of coping with them . If they ~gree With our conclusions, they will tum their valu- attention and talents elsewhere. If they disagree it wilJ be becau~e ou_r :eport hf-!S helped them reach a clear picture of w~erem ex1~tmg stud!es arc faulty or incomplete and thereby wlll have st1.mulated 1deas fo r more accurate studies. If they do get such 1deas and. can formulate them clearly. we have no doubt tha t support ~111 be f<;>rthcoming to c arry on with such clearly-defined, spcc1fic stud1es. We think that such ideas for work should be supported. me r.ea~ers may think that we have now wandered into a contrad1Ct1of!. ~arlier we said that we do not think study of UFO reports IS llkely to be a fruitful direction of scientific adva nce; now we have just said tha t persons with good ideas spe<;1fi~ studies in this field should be supported. This is no con.trad1c.t10n. Althoug h we conclude after nearly two years ~ mtens1ve study, tha t we do not see any fruitful lines of : ivan.ce f~om the study of UFO re ports, we believe that any uc en~st Wtth adequate training and crede ntia ls who does come wnh a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should supported. What we a re saying here was said in a more general context nearly a century ago by William Kingdon Clifford, a great mathematical physicist. Jn his "Aims and Instruments of Scientific Thought" he expressed himself th is way: Remember, then, that [scientific thought] is the guide of action; that the tn1th which it arrives at is not that which we can ideally contemplate without error, but that which we may act upon without fear; and you cannot fail to see that scien- tific thought is not an accompaniment or condition of human progress, but human progress i1self. Just as individual scientists may make errors of judgment about f ruitful directions for scientific effort, so also any indi- vidual administrator or committee which is charged with de- ciding on financial support for research proposals may also make an error of judgment. This possibility is m inimized by the existence of parallel channels, for consideration by more than one group, of proposals for research projects. In the period since 1945, the federal government has evolved flexible effective machinery for giving careful consideration to proposals from properly qualified scientists. What to some seem like duplicated machinery actually acts as a safe- guard against errors being made by some single official body. Even so, some errors could be made but tbe ha.za.rd is reduced nearly to zero. Therefore we think that all o f the agencies of the federal government, and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to consider UFO research proposals along with the submitted to t