CIA-UAP-019, Australian Dept of Defense Scientific and Intel Aspects of the UFO Problem
Dated to 1971, an Australian review of the USAF Project Blue Book. This document was released by the National Archives of Australia.
The summary above is sourced from the released file metadata as published to war.gov. The analysis sections below are original to this tracker.
Text of the document
Machine-extracted from the PDF war.gov published (its text layer or OCR), so expect errors, especially in names, numbers and handwriting; the PDF is the authoritative copy. Lines that did not extract as readable text are left out. Showing about 990 words from pages 4, 5, 6, 7 of 19.
PAGE 4
4,dth the recommerdiitiunis nf the Condon report, Project BLUE BOOK vas terI11inated, but presumably this veu]d ha.vo little effect on the main progr1-;1,n,me. 5. It would a.ppenr wrong for Au:stralia to remain ignorant ci' the true situa'ticr::.. We l&ck an intelligence viewpoint th11.t ca.n &seess the nature and poasiblo consequences of the problem, ~ scientific vie~~oint that co~ld derive :!ICicntifically valid data from the reports &nd a public relations viewpoint that ca~ honestly satisfy public intere:!lt. To overcome these deficiencies in the exists for the acceptance. of the RAAF suggest.ion that another government department assume responsibility for the investigation and analysis o.r UFO report.!.
PAGE 5
U.S. OPFICIAL ATTITUDE TO U.P.D•:s
In June of 19,17 the Air Techni~ o.l Int('lligcncc Centre
(ATIC) near Dayton, Ohio, assumed a. re·,pcnsibility to investiga.te
origin. Ey the end of' the y .. a.r when ATIC was offie ially author iso-i
to invntiga.to under the project code no.n.c of SIGN and with a. high
planetary ra~her tha11 a. Soviet origin. TJJese opi n:i ans were
cry:stalliz:;-d into 11 "'ritten csti:nate that .,,·as sent to the Pentagon
in September 1948. Vnen the inte rplo.nc to.ry cone lusions were re ,:j ~c .od
ATIC e.gl!l.insti trying to unravel the liFO problem.
2. In Febru~ry 1949, ATIC personnol ur. Project SIG~ were
replaced Witt> nev personnel 1-0 form Project tHtUJJGE. A defini·te
attempt vas mado during !.9·19 to use Project GRUDGE to destroy any
acccptani::o of UPO'!!!. The motives for this ;ue not t:lear: po:s:o.ih!y
Air Pore,~ embarnLssmE!.n t at being incap.,.ble of controlling tha
situation PAGE 6 • sorting machines.
the normal r1,1.te of reporhng and inclu~ed I-he two cxtensive Jul!·
eigbtings invdviog lia.shington D.C. This marked increase in !'!ightin~:s
bad diverae efl'ect:,. A cu•npunent. of USAF intcl..1..igence considertJd
closer ec,utnct, To prepare the public for this po:isibility 41
previously cl~ssified reports vere re}Pasei for publication bet~eeo.
earlie?' offic io.1 USAF policy of di511li5siog the reporb as mi5-
identification:, etc. On the other hand, the CIA regarded tho su~mPr
UFO activity as a throat to national security mainly because the
resulting crowdeo communications and defence forcee involvement
the Office of Scientific 1nte11 igence c!' CU. during mid-January 1953
tor the purpose of recot1m11nding future o.ction on the UFO proble11.
then c l:i.asified two rnovi e films of UPO 's and the early results of
statistical analysis of J,200 reports. Because of the vital issues
investigetion be contimrnd, but 'Wi Lh increased personnel and equipn:ent.
'l'he USAF responded proa1ptly '>li th a.n instrue tion to comply vitb these
a preference to publicly abandon the investigo.tion whil:!it intensifying
the collection Clf data. Hy September 1953 Lhe CIA position had been
la.rgdy achieved with Project BLUE BOOK rcducad from A staff of ten
qualified po:rsonnel operating at a top secret level to a virtually
inactive project involving one airman. The invc5tigating ~omponPnl
vhieh was trained in rapid intelligence procurement and reported to
Air Defence Command and USAF Intellizence '\ia!';hi.ngt.on rel.her than
Bl,IJE DOOK. Direct accus s be tween the 4602nd AISS and ::.11 USAF uni t.s
vas atnhorized by AFH 200-2 whcrens previously this privilege had
boon g-i ve-n to BLUE BOOK. Al thnugh on1y Llw v.irracrn (first-class)
remained in Sept.e111ber 1943, BLUE BOOK was later built up to one
officer, one sergeant, one secret-ary, and a pa:rL-t.ime·c:-00!:!ultc:1.nt PAGE 7 Dr J. All(m Hyrwk, staying at about this level until it was closed
dovn in December 1969. During Lhis t.inw BLUE BOO){ served mo.inly
to the public, a.nd did not form a vitn1 link in collection or
Berious analysis.
7. Control of public awareness of the UFO situati.:in vas
tightened by the issuing of JAKAP 146 in 1953 which prohibited
service personnel from di.,cussing UFO's by threatening defaulLerc;
with up to 10 years gaol and up to a $10,000 fine. When service
Ia. this way many Intelligence .Dffi::crs associ-o.tcd·-_wi th the UFO problem,
including Major D. Fournet who was BI.CF. BOOK Project Officer at the
Pentagon until l~te 1952, Captatn E. Ruppolt who headed Project
GRUDGE and Prt,ject BLUE .BOOK until September 1')53 and Admiral
Hillenkoetter who directed CIA from it, inception until October 1950,
on retiring froffi tho services, all publicly s~ated that the U.S.
this fact fro!D the public.
8. When the National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenom~na
(NICAP} was fornllHi in 1955 to counter the publicly suppre3sed USAF
invostigation of UFO's, the firet Cha.irman was Admiral D.S. Fahrney
who h~d directed the Navy's guided missile programme from its
inception. Apft,rt, from Admiral Hillenl~oettt>r, Major Keyboe and
Major Fo11rne-t, other Directors have incluilod Rear Admi!"al H.B. Kno1,les,
General A. Wedemeyer and t:ol J,J. Brye.a (who was special assistant
to the Ser.retl'l.ry of the Air Foree). To reduce the effect of these
&nd similar defections from o!ficia.l policy after rd,irernP.ni., the
revised JANAP 146E, passed in 1960, made it an offence under the
Eepionage Act if data on UFO's were revealed,
Where this file fits in the PURSUE archive
This file is one of CIA's 23 files in the Trump PURSUE disclosure. Within the CIA agency block it ranks #18 of 23 by Anomalousness Index. Across the entire 450-file archive it ranks #229 of 450.
That places it in the lower-scoring band of the archive (229 of 450 by score), typical of investigative-record style files where the report is paper-based rather than instrumented.
For the broader cluster context, this file is part of Australia's 1971 Blue Book Review - the 1971 Australian Department of Defence review of the USAF Project Blue Book - a foreign government's independent read on the US UFO program. The cluster page walks through all 1 member files with regional grouping, sensor breakdown, and standout analysis.
Anomalousness Index: 58/100
Evidentiary weight that this encounter remains unexplained after conventional analysis. Not a probability of extraterrestrial origin - that number is not honestly computable from the released files and this tracker refuses to publish it.
🤖 AI-ASSISTED SCORING · methodology
The six rubric components break down for this file as follows. Each component has a weighted contribution to the final score; the per-component explanation below describes what this file's particular value on that component means in the rubric's framework.
Reported by a witness with no instrumented record. The lowest tier in the rubric's sensor axis. Eyewitness perception in field conditions, even when the witness is highly credentialed, scores below capture by any instrumented modality. This report reached the federal record through the CIA.
Federal agency personnel (CIA investigators or equivalent) recording the report into the federal investigative system. Investigative credentials, but typically operating in a reactive rather than mission-active posture.
Single-witness or single-instrument capture. This is the corroboration tier for the overwhelming majority of the PURSUE archive on the released metadata - the rubric records the honest limit of the underlying record rather than inferring multi-witness corroboration that the released summaries do not establish. A small number of files with an independent second witness or instrument score on the multi-witness/multi-instrument tier above this one.
No kinematic measurements - speed, acceleration, vector - are published in the released file with sufficient precision to score on the kinematic axis. The rubric does not infer kinematic anomaly from narrative observer estimates. Every file in the archive carries this value, which is itself an observation about the disclosure: kinematic-grade telemetry was not part of what was released.
A conventional candidate explanation has been considered but is not dispositive. Every file in the archive scores this way - reflecting that the underlying release metadata systematically caveats strong determinations in either direction. The released summaries warn against reading them as conclusive analytical judgments, and the rubric respects that.
Released as open after formal review by the originating agency. The file passed through a review process and was published in that posture - a stronger disposition signal than 'unresolved with no review,' because review has occurred and the open status is the agency's published conclusion.
Bottom line on the score: the Anomalousness Index of 58/100 reflects evidentiary weight that this specific file's encounter remains structurally unexplained by the rubric's six axes - it is not a claim that the underlying event involved anything non-conventional, and it is not comparable across rubrics that use different weights. For the full per-axis weights and the rubric JSON, see /methodology.
Related files in CIA
Other PURSUE files in the same category, ranked by Anomalousness Index.
ODNI-UAP-D001, USPER Narrative, Senior USIC Official
CIA-UAP-002, Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects, Report, 1952-1953
CIA-UAP-003, The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance; The U-2 and OXCA…
CIA-UAP-004, CASE 17708 (CLOSED) and DR. Leon Davidson
CIA-UAP-005, German Scientist's Article on 'Flying Discs'
CIA-UAP-006, Sighting Of Unconventional Aircraft
Verification
SHA-256:
This hash is the SHA-256 of the file body war.gov served on the verification date above. War.gov has re-processed some file bodies since first release (re-compression + OCR, no content removed - see /changes); we re-verify and record the change rather than silently serve a stale hash. How to check this yourself →