SUBJECT: PROJECT STORK FILE: UFO2130
==========================================================================
This file contains the text of "seven Status Reports for Project Stork" which
are in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration,
(NARA).
It is clear that these (107) pages are not the total paper generated by Project
Stork. Internal references to other documents exist in this text, including
further Status Reports. None of these is in the custody of the NARA.
REPRODUCTION NOTES:
This file uses a line length of 80 characters, and uses all 80 on many lines.
Hand written notes appear in the pages; this information has been retained.
1. [ Text in [ ] brackets is crossed out in original ]
2. { Text in curly brackets { } is hand written on original }
3. _Text enclosed with underscores_ is underlined in original
4. {{ Text in double curly brackets }} indicates CUFON NOTES.
The original is typed, doublespaced on 8 1/2 X 11 inch paper. The copy
provided is reproduced on legal sized paper. This is apparently standard
National Archives practice.
- Jim Klotz CUFON SYSOP April 2, 1994
=============================================================================
[ S E C R E T ] AUTH: CO, ATIC
BY: R.J. Ruppelt
1st Lt. USAF
UNCLASSIFIED DATE 8 Jan 52
SECTION OPERATIONS
ATIAA
Visit to
Lt. E. J. Ruppelt and Col. Kirkland conferred with members of [ ]
[ ] on 26 December 1951 in regard to Project Grudge. The
question of whether or not there was enough material available on uniden-
tified aerial objects to warrant a detailed scientific study was discussed.
It was decided that there was enough material available and [ ] would
submit a proposal to furnish consultants in the fields of astronomy, applied
psychology, physics, etc. They will also attempt to make a statistical
analysis of the reports in an attempt to obtain some pattern or trend.
It is very reasonable to believe that some type of unusual object or pheno-
mena is being observed as many of the sightings have been made by highly
qualified sources. [(Secret)]
{ Background - }
{ How Special Rept }
{ No. 14 came }
{ into being }
DOWNGRADED AT 3 YEAR INTERVALS
DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS
DOD DIR 5200.10
UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
{ ATIAE-5 } [ SECRET ]
SECURITY INFORMATION
UNCLASSIFIED This document consists of...3...pages and
.....attachments, No....3...of.32.copies
Series ......A........
FIRST STATUS REPORT
on
PROJECT STORK
PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
by
DOWNGRADED AT 3 YEAR INTERVALS
DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS
DOD DIR 5200.10
[ {battelle} ]
April 25, 1952
UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
FIRST STATUS REPORT
on
PROJECT STORK
PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
by
[ ]
April 25, 1952
_INTRODUCTION_
This monthly report describes progress on Project Stork PPS-100, from its
inception on March 31, 1952 through April 25, 1952. On and after the effective
date, PPS-100 authorized us on request to provide assistance in analyzing and
evaluating reported sightings of unidentified aerial objects. The requirements
are as follows:
1. Provide a panel of consultants,
2. Assist in improving interrogation forms,
3. Analyze existing sighting reports,
4. Subscribe to a clipping service, as directed, and
5. Apprise the Sponsor monthly of all work done on PPS-100.
_SUMMARY_
A panel of consultants has been selected and a series of brief meetings
are being held in which typical sighting reports and the present interrogation
forms are studied, The objectives are to indoctrinate the panel and at the same
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
-2-
time to determine all essential and necessary facts which should be disclosed by
an ideal completed form. A coding scheme as being devised to record these facts
and to facilitate analysis, The project files for 1948 and 1951 were made avail-
able recently and this material is used in indoctrination and coding studies.
Upon completion of coding, analysis of the files will begin, probably within one
month.
The clipping service has been initiated and approximately 350 clippings
have been received, The Life article is responsible for 90 per cent of the clip-
pings, with the remainder being a few new sightings reported concurrently from
several sources, These clippings are reproduced here xerographically and the
originals are transmitted to the Sponsor.
WTR:amj
{ 4/25 }
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
SECURITY INFORMATION
This document consists of 26 pages and
UNCLASSIFIED No. .{3}. of 31 copies, series A.
Secret { /s/ F.H. McGovern, Capt. USAF}
AUTH: CO, ATIC
INITIALS: F. H. McGovern, Captain
Date: June 6, 1952
SECOND STATUS REPORT
on
PROJECT STORK
PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
by
[ ]
June 6, 1952
T52-5673
UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
_TABLE OF CONTENTS_
_Page_
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FUTURE WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SECTION I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Tentative Observer's Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Coding Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Punched Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Statistical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
EXHIBIT I. TENTATIVE OBSERVER'S DATA SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
EXHIBIT II. CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
EXHIBIT III. PUNCHED CARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
EXHIBIT IV. WORKSHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
UNCLASSIFIED
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
SECOND STATUS REPORT
on
PROJECT STORK
PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
by
[ ]
June 6, 1952
This monthly report describes progress on Project Stork,
PPS-100, for the period from April 26, 1952, through June 6, 1952. The
original requirements were as follows:
1. To provide a panel of consultants,
2. To assist in improving the interrogation forms,
3. To analyze existing sighting reports,
4, To subscribe to a newspaper clipping service, and
5. To apprise the Sponsor monthly of all work done on PPS-100.
It is now anticipated that these original requirements will
supplemented and extended, The formal arrangements have not yet been
completed.
_SUMMARY_
The panel of consultants has been selected and indoctrinated
in a series of meetings. Members of the panel are now engaged in com-
pleting the remaining requirements of PPS-100.
T52-5673
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-2-
A preliminary analysis of the existing report file has been
completed. Information derived from this analysis has been applied in
improving the present interrogation form. A tentative Observer's Data
Sheet has been prepared and studied by the consultants' panel. Perti-
nent suggestions were incorporated in the tentative form, which is
enclosed for review in Section I. The revised data sheet now includes
all technical details thought to be essential. It is to be evaluated
next by an astronomer, a psychologist, and a CAB investigator. Arrange-
ments for their evaluation are now being made.
The facts reported in present files or on new sightings are
to be entered on the observer's data sheet. This information will not
be coded for direct entry on punched cards. Instead, the facts will
be classified and analyzed before entries are made on the punched cards.
To facilitate this process, a coding scheme has been prepared to serve
as an intermediate step between the data sheet and the punched card.
A copy is enclosed in Section I.
The final element in the data record is the punched card on
which the results of coded calculations and analyses are entered. A
copy of a typical card is also enclosed in Section I.
Newspaper accounts of sightings furnished by the clipping
service are being received at approximately a constant rate; however,
the _Life_ article is now responsible for only about half of the clippings.
Originally, the clippings were copied at Battelle, and then transmitted
to the Sponsor. In the future, the clippings will be sent directly to
the Sponsor by Battelle.
T52-5673
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-2-
_FUTURE WORK_
The available files will be coded and punched cards will be
Prepared. When cards for the sighting reports for one year are completed,
preliminary statistical studies will begin. The results of these studies
will be used to appraise the adequacy of all the forms and codes which
have been devised. Necessary corrections and additions will be made
after this limited study. Then, the remaining sighting reports will be
analyzed statistically.
T52-5673
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
_4_
_SECTION I_
_Tentative Observer's Data Sheet_
A completed copy of the tentative Observer's Data sheet is
shown in Exhibit I. Two uses for this form are anticipated. First
filed sighting reports will be analyzed to extract facts to be entered
on this form for coding. Second, when tests establish the adequacy of
the form, it may be used directly by observers in recording sighting
reports, This latter use will conserve time now expended in extracting
information from the present reports for coding on the punched cards.
_Coding Scheme_
The coding scheme is illustrated in Exhibit II, This com-
pleted enclosure is to serve as an intermediate between the observer's
report and the punched-card abstract or the facts on the sighting. In
most cases, the facts on the sighting are not entered on the punched
cards directly. In same cases, intervening steps require only coding,
while in others calculations or analyses also may be involved. Prior
to discussing that uses to which the punched cards will be put, it
should be emphasized that the facts represented include:
1. Those presently on the standard form,
2. Those suggested by the Sponsor, and
3. Those suggested by the panel.
As might be expected, many more entries are proposed than have been
used previously.
T52-5673
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
_5_
_Punched Card_
A typical completed punched card is included for reference in
Exhibit III, This card should be compared with the observer's data"
sheet for this sighting, prepared from the original report. The data
sheet is the completed one described previously.
_Statistical Studies_
From the information entered on the punched cards, it will be
possible to analyze many characteristics of sightings, (See Exhibit IV.)
Some of these may be obvious, others are subtle, but all seem interesting.
The planning of statistical studies is necessarily incomplete. However,
some examples may suggest the possible scope of study.
Studies have been planned to reveal the variation in sighting
activity with time and position. The time of sightings in conjunction
with the geographical location will be used in several ways. First,
time will permit correlation of sightings with astronomical and tidal
phenomenon. Second, sighting times and locations may be correlated
with weather conditions. These studies will assist in determining
periods and areas of unusual activity. In addition, useful data on
track and speed may evolve from such analyses.
Data will be compiled on the lag between sightings and the
receipts of reports and supplementary information. This knowledge will
aid in evaluating reports and in determining the effectiveness of
collection procedures.
T52-5673
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
_6_
The geographical location of sightings will be coded to
permit extensive manipulation. For example, it will be possible to
extract cards for areas bounded by parallels of latitude and meridians
of longitude. It will also be possible to enter position data for
facilities such as ADC, SAC, and others. Range and bearing from sightly
locations to facility locations then can be calculated. The appearance
and performance characteristics of sightings will be coded also. These
codes will assist in classifying sightings, which is the preliminary
step of identification. Where the performance and appearance char-
acteristics check in multiple sightings, the time and location data
may be used to determine the track and velocity of objects.
The interrogation forms are designed to extract information
as discrete facts, later to be corroborated by an integrated written
description. There are two aims here. First, the completion of the
form will assist in evaluating the observer. Second, the discrete
facts may be checked against the written story for evaluation. Some
subtle questions cannot be answered readily, if at all. The related
answers will aid in evaluating the observer.
From these brief comments, it may be clear that the basic
coding scheme is brand. With punched cards, analysis of many facts
on each sighting will be rapid and convenient. However, once the code
is fixed, it will be difficult to extract information not incorporated
in the code. For this reason, approximately 10 percent of the space
available for entries in the code has been left to provide for expansion.
The desired expansion must be planned before the code is fixed. This is
one item of work planned for the immediate future. After the code is
fixed, necessary extension of the system can be effected with supplementary
cards. T52-5673
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
_EXHIBIT I. TENTATIVE OBSERVER'S DATA SHEET_
T52-5673
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
UNCLASSIFIED [ SECRET ] { Example of }
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] { "UFO" Sighting }
-7-
_EXHIBIT I. TENTATIVE OBSERVER'S DATA SHEET_
Incident 202
_Where Choice is Given, Circle Proper_
_Answers, or Insert Answer_
1. Date of your observation: _08_ _11_ _48_
Day Month Year
2. Date you reported the observation: _19_ _11_ _48_
Day Month Year
3. What time was it when you sighted the object: _6_ _50_
Hrs. Min.
A.M. _P.M._ Daylight _Standard_
Zone: _Eastern_, Central, Mountain, Pacific, ________________________
Other
4. Length of time object was observed. Estimate: ______ _______ ___1___
Hours Minutes Seconds
5. Where observed:
______Newark Air Force Base____ ____Newark_________ ___N.J.__ __U.S.A._
Postal Address City or Town State Country
6. Where were you at time of observation:
Inside building, In car, _Outdoors_, ______________________________
Other
7. Were you moving at any time during this sighting: _No______
Yes or No
8. Did you stop at any time during this sighting: _____________
Yes or No
9. If you were moving - give ___________ and _______ miles per hour.
Direction Speed
10. How was object observed: _Naked eye_
Eye glasses
Other glass (window or Windshield)
Binoculars, Telescope, Theodolite
Other_____________________________
11. How did you happen to notice the object; ____Looked toward moon______
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
T52-5673
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-8-
_EXHIBIT I. TENTATIVE OBSERVER'S DATA SHEET_
12. Describe what you saw as briefly as possible in the following spaces:
a. Sound__None_________________ b. Shape__Disc_(almost no depth)____
c. Color__Luminous_____________ d. Size_______Moon__________________
e. Number______1_______________ f. Light brightness__1/3_of_Moon____
g. Light color_____Grey________ h. Motion___________________________
i. Speed_____800_M.P.H._________ j. Other____________________________
________
13. How did object disappear from view: _Suddenly_or_Gradually_
Circle One
14. At any time did the object:
_________________________
a. Change direction b. Change speed _c. Move behind something;_ Cloud
House, Tree,_________________ d. Blend with background e. Decrease
Other
in size f. Decrease in brightness g. Move in front of something
h. ___________________________________________________________________
15. When you first looked at the object,what direction were you facing?_N.N.W._
16. When you last saw the object, what direction were you facing?_S.S.W.__
17. In the following sketch A, draw a line
from the observer's eye to the circular
arc to show the apparent elevation of the
object in the sky, Directly
Overhead
A. When first seen, label a. |***
| **
B. When last seen, label b. | / **
| / **
|/ 45deg. *
|------------------
Observer's Horizon
Eye
SKETCH A
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] T52-5673
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-9-
_EXHIBIT I. TENTATIVE OBSERVER'S DATA SHEET (Continued)_
18. On the following Sketch B, label a at
the apparent position of the object
when first seen and b at point last
seen. Trace the apparent path of * * *
the object between points a and b. * *
* *
If possible label 1, 2, 3, etc., * *
along the traced path to show the -------------------
successive positions of the object Horizon Observer's Horizon
after equal intervals of time dur- Eye
ing the sighting.
SKETCH B
19. In Sketch C please show the
observed features of the object
such as:
A. Apparent Shape, (were edges <----------
pointed or rounded), * * *
* *
B. Apparent direction of motion * *
(show by arrow), and * *
* *
C. (Other details, exhaust, trails, * * *
tails, surfaces, etc.
20. The sun and the moon are shown below as they appear in their correct
relative size, In this Sketch D, show the apparent size of what you saw.
_SUN_ _OBJECT_ _MOON_
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * SKETCH D
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] T52-5673
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-10-
_EXHIBIT I. TENTATIVE OBSERVER'S DATA SHEET (Continued)_
21. In your own words please describe the sighting you observed. Use sketches
if desired. All observations from the time of first sighting to the time
of disappearance are important. Include a description of the weather,
wind, and cloud conditions at the time of this sighting,
At 1850 hours, 8 November, 1948, I was standing just outside
hangar No. 7 at the Newark Air Force Base, on the south side of the hangar,
It was a perfectly clear night, I looked up toward the moon and noticed a
pale luminous object race across the sky. It was about 1/3 the brightness of
the moon, round like a disc, with little or no depth (thickness) to it. It
appeared to be about the same relative diameter as the moon. It traveled from
north northwest in an arc toward the south southwest in about one second or less
passing out of sight over another hangar. I heard no sound from the object.
I estimate the speed of the object at 800 miles per hour, and its altitude at
five to six thousand feet. I have seen jet aircraft make tactical approaches
at this Field at approximately 600 miles per hour, and judging from them,
the speed of the object I sighted was at least 200 miles an hour faster. From
where I stood, I could see approximately 75 per cent of the path of the object.
The peak of its arc was approximately 45 degrees above the horizon to the
west southwest of my position.
[ SECRET ] T52-5673
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-11-
_EXHIBIT I. TENTATIVE OBSERVER'S DATA SHEET (Continued)_
22. Your full name: Edmund J. Cisek
23. Your address: Newark, New Jersey
24. Your occupation: Civilian Dispatcher
25. Last school you attended:
26. Year of last attendance at this school:
27. Please list the names and addresses or persons who discussed this sighting
with you, It is not necessary to lift the names of officials or investiga-
tors.
28. Further comments which you believe are important should be entered here.
Use additional sheets of the same size if necessary,
Estimated distance of object from observer, 5000 to 6000 feet.
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] T52-5673
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
_EXHIBIT II. CODES_
[ SECRET ] T52-5673
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-12-
_EXHIBIT II. CODES_
_CODE 1. GENERAL_
A. Every column must have at least one entry. If no data are
available for any column, the X should be used.
b. If a number in any column is used to enter data, then X
qualifies the data as indicated in the Code for the specific
column.
_CODE_25_DURATION UNITS_ _CODE_28_LATITUDE_ _CODE 32_LONGITUDE
X X South latitude X East longitude
Y Y Y
0 Days 0 0
1 Hours 1 1
2 Minutes 2 2
3 Seconds 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
6 6 6
7 7 7
8 8 8
9 9 9
_CODE_41_POSITION_ _CODE_42_MOVEMENT_OF_OBSERVER
X Variable X
Y Y
0 0 Wasn't moving
1 In car 1 Was moving - stopped
2 Outdoors 2 Was moving - didn't stop
3 In plane 3
4 In building 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 Other 9
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-13-
_EXHIBIT II. CODES (Continued)_
_CODE_43_OBSERVATION_METHOD_ _CODE_44_SOUND_
X Variable X Variable
Y Y
0 Naked eye 0 Motors
1 Eye glasses 1 Jets or rockets
2 Window 2 Explosion
3 Windshield 3 Unlike aircraft
4 Binocular 4 Hiss, swishing, whining
5 Telescope 5 Rumbling
6 Theodolite 6 Humming or buzzing
7 Radar 7 None
8 Photographic 8 Not stated
9 Other 9 Other
_CODE_45_COLOR_ _CODE_46_NUMBER_ _CODE_47_LIGHT-COLOR_
X Variable X X Variable
Y Y Y
0 Metallic 0 - 1 0 White
1 Light-glow-luminous 1 - 2 1 Black
2 Red 2 - 3 2 Grey
3 Orange 3 - 4 3 Red
4 Yellow 4 - 5 4 Orange
5 Green 5 - 6 5 Yellow
6 Blue 6 - 7 - 10 6 Green
7 Violet 7 - 11 - 20 7 Blue
8 Black 8 - 20 - 30 8 Violet
9 White 9 - 31 or more 9 Other
_CODE_48_SPEED_ _CODE_49_SHAPE_
X Variable X Variable
Y Y
0 Hovering, stationary 0 Ellipse
1 Less than 100 m.p.h. 1 Rocket
2 100-400 m.p.h. 2 Conventional aircraft
3 More than 400 m.p.h. 3 Unconventional aircraft
4 Meteor like 4 Meteor, comet
5 Not stated 5 Lenticular
6 6 Conical
7 7 Tear drop
8 8 Flame, tails, fire
9 Other 9 Other
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-14-
_EXHIBIT II. CODES (Continued)_
CODE 51 SUBTENDED VISUAL ANGLE
_CODE_50_SHAPE_PARAMETER_a/b_ _(Referred_to_sun_diameter)_
X Variable X - Decreased in size
Y Y
0 - 0.0 0 - 0.1
1 - 0.05 1 - 0.2
2 - 0.1 2 - 0.5
3 - 0.2 3 - 0.75
4 - 0.3 4 - 1.0
5 - 0.5 5 - 1.5
6 - 0.75 6 - 2.0
7 - 0.9 7 - 4.0
8 - 1.0 8 - 4.0 to 10.0
9 - Other 9 - Other
_CODE_52_LIGHT_BRIGHTNESS_(Intensity)_ _CODE_53_ANGULAR_VELOCITY_
X Decreased X Variable
Y Y
0 Sunlight on mirror 0 Zero
1 Sunlight on aluminum 1 very slow, 1 deg. per second
2 Sunlight on plaster 2 Slow, 3 deg. per second
3 Sunlight on stone 3 Moderate, 6 deg. per second
4 Sunlight on soil 4 Rapid, 12 deg. per second
5 Brighter than the moon 5 Very fast, 30 deg. per second
6 Like moon 6 Extremely fast, 90 deg. per second
7 Duller than moon 7 More than 90 deg. per second
8 Barely visible 8
9 Other 9 Other
CODE 54 ANGULAR ACCELERATION
_(Change_in Angular_Velocity)_ _CODE_55_APPEARANCE_BEARING_
X Variable X
Y Y
0 Zero, V=constant 0 - N
1 Increasing slowly 1 - NE
2 Decreasing slowly 2 - E
3 Increasing fast 3 - SE
4 Decreasing fast 4 - S
5 Increasing very fast 5 - SW
6 Decreasing very fast 6 - W
7 7 - NW
8 8
9 9
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-15-
_EXHIBIT II. CODES (Continued)_
CODE 57-58 ELEVATION
_CODE_56_DISAPPEARANCE_BEARING_ _WITH_RESPECT_TO_GROUND, DEGREES_
X - Disappeared suddenly _Initial_ _Final_
Y X Variable X Variable
0 - N Y Y
1 - NE 0 0-9 0 0-9
2 - E 1 10-19 1 10-19
3 - SE 2 20-29 2 20-29
4 - S 3 30-39 3 30-39
5 - SW 4 40-49 4 40-49
6 - W 5 50-59 5 50-59
7 - NW 6 60-69 6 60-69
8 7 70-79 7 70-79
9 8 80-90 8 80-90
9 9
CODE 61 OBJECT ORIENTATION
Apparent inclination of principal
_axis_of_object_from_horizontal_ _CODE_62-63-64_CIVILIAN_OCCUPATION_
X Variable Dictionary of Occupational Titles,
Y Vol. II, 2nd Edition, pp. XIX-XXVI.
0 +90 to 60 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
1 +60 to 30 Employment Security, U.S. Government
2 +30 to 10 Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1949.
3 +10 to 0 See pp. XIX-XXVI.
4 0
5 0 to -10
6 -10 to -30
7 -30 to -60
8 -60 to -90
9
_CODE_65_SERVICE_ _CODE_66_DUTY_
X X
Y Y
0 Army 0 Pilot
1 Navy 1 Weather Tech.
2 Marine 2 Radar Tech.
3 Air Force 3 Tower op.
4 Coast Guard 4 Balloon obs.
5 Merchant 5 Tech. spec.
6 Commercial Air 6 Guards, lookouts
7 CAA 7 Ground or deck crews
8 Gov't. Contractor 8 Navig. or bombardier
9 Other 9 other
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-16-
_EXHIBIT II. CODES (Continued)_
_CODE_67_RANK_EQUIVALENT_ _CODE_76_EVALUATION_OF_OBSERVER_RELIABILITY_
X Officer X X
Y Y Y
0 Lt. 2nd 0 Private 0 Complete
1 Lt. 1st 1 Private, 1st Cls. 1 Quite
2 Capt. 2 Corp. 2 Fair
3 Maj. 3 Serg. 3 Doubtful
4 Lt. Col. 4 S. T. Serg. 4 Poor
5 Col. 5 M. Serg. 5 Not
6 Brig. Gen. 6 Warrant Off. 6
7 Maj. Gen. 7 Chief Warrant 7
8 Lt. Gen. 8 8
9 General 9 9 Can't be judged
_CODE_77_EVALUATION_OF_REPORT_RELIABILITY_ _CODE_78_PRELIMINARY_IDENTIFICATION_
X X Possibly
Y Y
0 Complete 0 Balloon
1 Quite 1 Astronomical
2 Fair 2 Aircraft
3 Doubtful 3 Light phenomenon
4 Poor 4 Birds
5 Not 5 Clouds, dust, etc.
6 6 Rocket or missile
7 7 Psychological manifestations
8 8 Electromagnetic phenomenon
9 Can't be judged 9 Other
_CODE_79-80_FINAL_IDENTIFICATION_
X Possibly
Y
0 Balloon
1 Astronomical
2 Aircraft
3 Light phenomenon
4 Birds
5 Clouds, dust, etc.
6 Rocket or missile
7 Psychological manifestations
8 Electromagnetic phenomenon
9 Other
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
_EXHIBIT_III.__PUNCHED_CARD_
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
-17-
_EXHIBIT_III._PUNCHED_CARD_
__________________________________
/ IBM-SERVICE BUREAU |
/ 80 - |
| 9 - |
| 8 - - |
| 7 - |
| 6 - |
| 5 - |
| 4 - |
| 3 - |
| 2 - |
| 1 - |
| 70 - |
| 9 - |
| 8 - |
| 7 - |
| 6 - |
| 5 - |
| 4 - |
| 3 - |
| 2 - |
| 1 - |
| 60 - |
| 9 - |
| 8 - - |
| 7 - - |
| 6 - - |
| 5 |
| 4 - |
| 3 - |
| 2 - |
| 1 - |
| 50 - |
| 9 - |
| 8 - |
| 7 - |
| 6 - |
| 5 - |
| 4 - |
| 3 - |
| 2 - |
| 1 - |
| 40 - |
| 9 - |
| 8 - |
| 7 - |
| 6 - |
| 5 - |
| 4 - |
| 3 - |
| 2 - |
| 1 - |
| 30 - |
| 9 - |
| 8 - |
| 7 - |
| 6 - |
| 5 - |
| 4 - |
| 3 - |
| 2 - |
| 1 - |
| 20 - |
| 9 - |
| 8 - |
| 7 - |
| 6 - |
| 5 - |
| 4 - |
| 3 - |
| 2 - |
| 1 - |
| 10 - |
| 9 - |
| 8 - |
| 7 - |
| 6 - |
| 5 - |
| 4 - |
| 3 - |
| 2 - |
| 1 - |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
---------------------------------------
Typical Punched Card Containing Information Coded For Incident 202
on Work Sheet.
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
_EXHIBIT_IV.__WORK_SHEET_
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-18-
_EXHIBIT_IV.__WORK_SHEET_
Observer's
Data Punched -
Sheet Card
_Question_ _Column_ _Code_ _______Description___________
1*
2 Incident serial
3 0202 Serial No. number
4__________________________________
5
____________________6______________00_______Serial No.___Insertion______
7
8______________08_______Day________
9
1. 10______________11_______Month______
11
___________________12______________48_______Year_________Observed_______
13
14______________09_______Day________
15
___2.______________16______________11_______Month________Reported_______
17
18______________XX_______Day________
19
___________________20______________XX_______Month________Rec'd_ATIC_____
21
22______________23_______Hrs._______ Time for observa-
23 tion Greenwich C.T.
___3.______________24______________50_______Min.________________________
25*______________3_______Time_units_ Duration of
26 observation
___4.______________27______________01_______Duration____________________
28*
29 40.70
30
___________________31_______________________Latitude____________________
32*
33
34 074.18 Location
5. 35
36_______________________Longitude_
37
38 7581
39
___________________40_______________________Cosine_latitude____________
* Denotes separate code key is needed.
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-18-
Observer's
Data Punched
Sheet Card
_Question_ _Column_ _Code_ ______Description____________
____6._____________41*____________2__________Where_observer_was___________
____7.__8._________42*____________0__________Moving_-_stopped_____________
____10.____________43*____________0__________How_observed__
______12a._44*____________7__________Sound_________
______12c._45*____________1__________Color_________
______12e._46*____________0__________Number________
12. ______12g._47*____________2__________Light-color___ Appearance
_12i._14b._48*____________3__________Speed_________ Description
_12b._19___49*____________0__________Shape_________
_12b._19___50*____________8__________a/b___________
12d._14e.20_51*____________4__________Size__________
_________12f._14f._52*____________8__________Light_brightness_____________
_53*____________7__________Angular_velocity_
4._12h._14._18._19_54*____________0__________Angular_acceleration__Motion_
____15.____________55*____________7__________Describe_appearance__________
13._14._16.________56*__________X-5__________Describe_disappearance_______
_57*__________X-4__________Initial_elevation____________
____17.____________58*__________X-4__________Final_elevation____Elevation_
59
12i._21.___________60*___________05__________Altitude,_100_ft.__Altitude__
18._19.____________61*____________4__________Object_orientation___________
62*
63 061
____24.____________64________________________Civilian_occupation_
65* Observer
66* 332
____24.____________67*_______________________Service_occupation___________
68
69
70 XXXX
71
72
73
74 XXXX
___________________75_____________________________________________________
76*____________9__________Observer______
___________________77*_______________________Report___________Evaluation__
78*__________X-0__________Preliminary__________________
79* Identification
___________________80*___________XX__________Final________________________
* Denotes separate code key is needed
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
This document consists of 5 pages and
No. .{5}. of 32 copies, series A.
Secret
AUTH: CO, ATIC {/s/ F.H. McGovern}
INITIALS: F. H. McGovern, {Capt}
Captain, USAF {USAF}
Date: July 7, 1952
THIRD STATUS REPORT
on
PROJECT STORK
PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
by
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
July 7, 1952
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
_TABLE_OF_CONTENTS_
_Page_
Panel of Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Interrogation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Analysis of Existing Sighting Reports . . . . . . . . . 3
Newspaper Clipping Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
THIRD STATUS REPORT
on
PROJECT STORK
PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
by
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
July 7, 1952
This report describes progress on Project Stork, PPS-100, for
the period from June 6, 1952, to July 7, 1952.
_Panel of Consultants_
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Professor of Astronomy, Director of the
McMillin Observatory, and Assistant Dean of the Graduate School at Ohio
State University was employed to consult on astronomical aspects of the
work involved in this project. The Tentative observer's Data Sheet, Ex-
hibit I, enclosed in the June 6 report, was studied by Dr. Hynek and
some changes and additions were made in accordance with his suggestions.
On June 22, Dr. Hynek started a tour to interview several pro-
fessional and amateur astronomer groups. The purpose of these interviews
are:
1. To learn if any competent people in this profession
have made sightings which have not been reported.
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-2.
2. To summarize the opinion of the competent people in
this field relative to the broad subjects of unidenti-
fied aerial objects.
3. To obtain information and suggestions which may be
useful in carrying out future phases of the work
on the investigation.
This tour will be completed July 11. After Dr. Hynek had spent
a short time on this tour, word was received from him that he is obtaining
some interesting information from professional astronomers about sightings
they have made which they have never otherwise reported. On a preliminary
basis, it appears that the results of this survey will be valuable to the
investigation.
_Interrogation_Forms_
Dr. Paul M. Fitts, Professor of Psychology and Director or Avia-
tion Psychology at Ohio State University, and a group of his Associates
are now engaged in revising the Tentative Observer's Interrogation Forms,
Exhibit I, of the June 6 report. The object of this revision is to design
the questionnaire so that a maximum of information regarding a sighting
can be expected from the average individuals who will be filling out the
questionnaires on future sightings. Trial tests with the revised ques-
tionnaire are planned to determine if the desired information on a sight-
ing is obtained with it. It is expected that this revised questionnaire
will be completed about July 16.
UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
T52-5673
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-3-
_Analysis_of_Existing_Sighting_Reports_
The file of sighting reports for 1948 has been studied in
detail. Information on these reports has been coded by using Exhibit I,
Tentative Observer's Data Sheet; Exhibit II, Codes; and Exhibit III,
Work Sheet, of the June 6 report. The coded data on the work sheets are
now being transferred to IBM punched cards, as shown in Exhibit III of the
June 6 report. When a file of about 150 of these coded sightings is
completed, preliminary analysis trials with the IBM system will be started.
_Newspaper_Clipping_Service_
The newspaper clippings are now being sent directly to the
Sponsor as requested in June.
_Future_Work_
The coding of existing sighting reports will be continued at
an accelerated rate during July. Preliminary analyses will be made with
the IBM system.
A separate report on the findings of Dr. J. Allen Hynek will be
prepared.
The interrogation forms are expected to be completed in July.
PJR:ddg
July 17, 1952
T52-5673
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ SECRET ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
SPECIAL REPORT
on
CONFERENCES WITH ASTRONOMERS
ON UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
by
J. Allen Hynek
August 6, 1952
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
_TABLE OF CONTENTS_
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Interviews with Astronomers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
SPECIAL REPORT
on
CONFERENCES WITH ASTRONOMERS
ON UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTS
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
by
J. Allen Hynek
August 6, 1952
This special report was prepared to describe the results of a series
of conferences with astronomers during and following a meeting of the American
Astronomical Society in Victoria, B. C., in June, 1952. It recounts personal
opinions of a large number of professionally trained astronomical observers
regarding unidentified aerial objects. In addition, it reports sightings by
five professional astronomers that were not explainable by them. Representing
the opinions of highly trained scientists, these comments should prove par-
ticularly helpful in assessing the present status of our knowledge of unknown
objects in the skies.
_PURPOSE_OF_INTERVIEWS_
The desirability has been established of inquiring of professionally
trained astronomers of considerable scientific background as to whether they
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED {1-20}
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-2-
had ever made sightings of unidentified aerial objects. At the same time, it
is felt that it would be profitable to obtain the informal opinions and advice
of high-ranking astronomers on the entire subject of unidentified aerial objects
of the manner in which the investigation of these objects was being conducted
by the Air Force, and of their own inner feelings about the possibility that
such objects were real and might constitute either a threat to national security
or a new natural phenomena worthy of scientific investigation.
Accordingly it was planned that a tour would be made of several of
the nation's observatories, not in the guise of an official investigator, but
rather as an astronomer traveling about to discuss scientific problems. It was
felt that this mild deception was necessary, that an artificial barrier to
communication might not be set up which would invalidate the assumption that
truly representative opinions were being obtained. Therefore, to maintain
good faith, the names of the astronomers interviewed are withheld from this
report.
In all, 45 astronomers were interviewed, nearly always individually
except in a few cases where this was impossible. Eight observatories were
visited and the National Meeting of the American Astronomical Society in
Victoria, British Columbia, was attended on June 25 to June 28.
Because of the confidential and highly personal manner in which the
interviews quoted below were made, and to keep faith with the many astronomers
interviewed, who, generally, were not aware that anything more than a personal
private talk between astronomers was going on, the names of the astronomers
will be withheld. They will be assigned letters, but the code will not be
included in this report.
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-3-
Table 1 gives an informal evaluation or each astronomer as an ob-
server, and, for some, their rating as a professional astronomer. These
ratings are based on my own personal opinion; they do not represent any fixed
levels of achievement in the general field of astronomy.
TABLE 1. INFORMAL EVALUATION OF ASTRONOMERS
PROVIDING DATA FOR THIS REPORT
==============================================================================
Rating Rating as a Rating Rating as a
as an professional as an professional
Astronomer observer astronomer Astronomer observer astronomer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 3 - V 3 2
B 1 - W 3 -
C 3 - X 3 1
D 2 - Y 1 -
E 3 - Z - -
F 3 - AA - -
G 1 - BB - -
H 2 - CC - -
I 1 - DD 1 1
J 1 EE 1 -
K - - FF - -
L 1 - GG 1 1
M 1 - HH 2 1
N 3 1 II 2 2
0 2 3 JJ - -
P 3 3 KK 1 -
Q 1 1 LL - -
R 1 - MM 2 -
S 2 - NN - -
T - - OO - -
U 1 - PP - -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to ratings: 1 Excellent
2 Above average
3 Average
==============================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-4-
INTERVIEWS WITH ASTRONOMERS
There follows a simple narrative of the interviews, after which the
opinions and advice of the astronomers will be summarized.
Astronomer A has never made any sightings and knows of none in his
immediate acquaintance who have.
Astronomer B has made sightings of things which people would call
"flying saucers" but hasn't seen anything that he couldn't explain. He has
seen birds at night flying in formation illuminated by city lights, but
probably not bright enough to have been photographed because they were traveling
"Pretty fast". Astronomer B wonders if some of the sightings are not due to
Navy secret weapons, since only the Navy has officially said nothing about
flying saucers. Astronomer B was quite outspoken and feels that past methods
of handling the subject have been "stupid". He feels pilots should not be
hushed up, and that secrecy only whets the public appetite.
Astronomer C has made no sightings, and is quite reluctant to discuss
the subject. It is evident that he regards it as a fairly silly proceeding
and subject. Difficult to bring the conversation around to the subject.
Astronomer D has made no such sightings and does not know any associ-
ate who has. He is fairly sympathetic in the matter and appears open minded
on the subject.
Astronomer E has made no sightings, but heard the great Seattle
meteorite of May 11 at 1:30 a.m. Apparently, he is not much interested in
the subject.
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-5-
Astronomer F, from England, has made no sightings, but tells of the
reports of unidentified objects in England.
Astronomer G has made no sightings, nor have his associates.
Reasonably interested in talking about the subject, he clearly does not con-
sider it a topic of any real importance as compared with the problems he is
interested in at the moment.
Astronomer H has been associated with systematic meteor observation,
but not for any great length or time. He has made no sightings nor have his
associates. His meteor cameras have not picked up any objects.
Astronomer I has made no sightings and it was rather difficult to
get him to talk about the subject at all. Clearly he does not regard it as a
problem of importance.
Astronomer J, who has had long experience at a meteor observatory,
has made no sightings but clearly is very interested in the problem. He has
promised cooperation should any items come to his attention. He is very much
interested in seeing this problem cleared up. His professional rating is
excellent.
Astronomer L has made no sightings nor, as far as he knows, have
any of his associates.
Astronomer M has made no sightings. Politely interested, but he
clearly does not regard it as a major problem.
Astronomer N, with an excellent professional rating, has made no
sightings nor does he know of any associates who have. He said that astronomer
Whipple thinks the green fireballs observed in New Mexico are small asteroids,
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-6-
whereas the ordinary meteors are cometary fragments. There is a further dis-
cussion of this point later with reference to La Paz.
Astronomer O, whose professional rating is only moderate, has seen
none.
Astronomer P, whose professional rating also is only moderate, has
seen none and does not consider the problem very important, (See footnote.)
Astronomer Q, with an excellent professional rating, has seen no
unidentified objects but says that reports come in occasionally from the
Fraser River valley northeast of Vancouver. Apparently these sightings have
been concerned with lights similar to the Lubbock lights.
Astronomer R has personally sighted an unidentified object, a light
which loomed across his range of vision, which was obstructed by an observatory
dome, much faster than a plane and much slower than a meteor. If it had been
a plane, then its rapid motion could be accounted for only by closeness, but
since no motors were heard, this explanation was essentially ruled out. Light
was steadier than that of a meteor and was observed for about three seconds.
Astronomer R does not ascribe any particular significance to this sighting,
except as it constitutes one of the many incomplete and unexplained sightings.
Astronomer R was not reluctant to talk about the subject of flying saucers and
pointed out that he must not fall into the error of believing that we under-
stand all physical phenomena. As late as the Year 1800, it was thought im-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: The professional ratings given here show that "sightings" and
interest in the problem do not run inversely proportional to the
professional rating of the astronomer.
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-7-
possible that meteorites, "stones from heaven", could fall from the sky.
There is no reason to believe that a century and a half later all the physical
phenomena that exist have been discovered. Astronomer R is, however, violently
opposed to the sensational approach to this problem. He points out that many
scientists, or at least some scientists, have approached these sightings for
the sake of personal glory and publicity but not for the benefit of the country.
He is also opposed to magazines such as Life setting themselves up as scientific
arbiters and passing scientific judgment on sightings when not qualified to do
so. In short, Astronomer R believes this subject is serious enough to be con-
sidered as a scientific problem, and that it should be taken entirely out of
the sensational realm. He believes, for instance, that a group of serious
scientists should aim to help investigators by starting with a thoroughgoing
investigation of the "Lubbock lights". This investigation would comprise not
only a rehash or previous sightings, but an intelligent cooperative effort to
examine the world of physical phenomena and to see which of those, and which
scientific or physical principles, might conceivably have led to these obser-
vations. He feels that the Lubbock incident is a particularly propitious one
to start with, since the observations were made by reliable observers in a
scientific atmosphere, and that, therefore, these qualified observers could
discuss with other scientists their sightings in a dispassionate manner.
Astronomer R turned over the record of his sighting made at the instant of
the sighting, for whatever use it may be. He is interested in the problem
and eminently cooperative.
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-8-
Astronomer S has seen none and is not particularly interested in the
problem.
Astronomer T has personally seen nothing, but recounted the incident
at Selfridge Field which occurred early in June, 1952, in which a group of
fliers from Selfridge Field was sent out to attack a target over Lake Erie.
As they were approaching the target, the shore observers radioed "Why don't
you shoot? You are already in the target." This apparently is another example
of the fairly frequent radar "sightings".
Astronomer U, Hugh Pruett, who docs not mind having his name used,
is Northwest Regional Director of the American Meteor Society. Although
getting on in years, he has had a great deal of experience with meteor obser-
vation. He evinced considerable interest and cooperation in the problem, and
I took the liberty of asking him to cooperate with this endeavor in tracking
down meteor sightings which might be associated with reports on flying saucers.
He is well acquainted with all the officers and members of the American Meteor
Society, and he could provide considerable help in assembling a panel of con-
sulting astronomers. Pruett. plotted the flight of the great Seattle meteor
from hundreds of reports. He is an avid "tracker-downer" of such things, and
he can be of considerable assistance in these matters. He himself has not
made any unexplained sightings. I checked my knowledge of meteors with him
and corroborated the points that there are many meteors that are green, that
some drop vertically, that some wobble, some have noise associated with them,
and some have been seen as long as 25 seconds. There is one record in the
literature of a meteor that lasted 50 seconds, but this seems hardly possible.
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-9-
Pruett, although he observed no objects, did hear a very loud noise above the
clouds early one morning which he does not believe was aircraft. He asked the
local radio station to help; his phone was kept busy for four hours. There is
no question that the noise existed, but no one saw anything.
Astronomer V has made no sightings. He was so interested in speaking
of his own troubles that it was impossible to bring the conversation around to
scientific problems. His professional rating is only intermediate.
Astronomer W was difficult to interest in the subject and did not
admit to having seen anything.
Astronomer X, with a high professional rating, has made no sightings
and exhibits an extremely negative attitude toward the whole problem. He
feels that all sightings except the green fireballs are merely misrepresenta-
tions of familiar objects, and he has no patience with the subject. He
believes that La Paz should have enough data to get the heights of the green
fireballs, and therefore settle the question. La Paz, when questioned later,
said he did have sufficient observations and the objects were eight to ten
miles high. Astronomer R, who happened to be present when Astronomer X was
"sounding off" again reiterated that it would be a good idea for some
astronomer to take a responsible attitude toward this problem, and that we will
get no place by merely pooh-poohing it,
Astronomer Y has made no sightings but has stated "If I saw one, I
wouldn't say anything about it". This statement led the conversation into the
question of what conditions would have to be met before he would report it.
The answer from him was the same as from several other astronomers, that if
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-10-
they were promised complete anonymity and if they could report their sightings
to a group of serious, respected scientists who would regard the problem as a
scientific one, then they would be willing to cooperate to the very fullest
extent. Astronomer Y suggested that an article be written in some astronomical
journal informing tho astronomical world that a reliable clearing house for
such information exists. (See footnote.) Astronomer Y, and others, were of
the strong opinion that the astronomical world should be informed through
reliable channels as to what the Air Force is doing in tracking down these
stories, and what is being done to put the investigation of such incidents on
a scientific basis.
Astronomer Z, from Germany, has sighted none himself but tells that
flying saucer reports also exist in Germany, but he believes that many may have
been introduced by the Occupation Forces. He reports that rumors are frequent
that the flying saucers might be from Mars, but that these reports are taken
by the intelligent simply as American propaganda to cover up the existence of
secret weapons. Or, they say, if not the Americans, then the Soviets.
Astronomer AA, from England, has made no sightings himself. He tells
that such sightings are talked about in England, however. The only specific
case he knows anything about is that of the falling ice which killed the sheep.
These very handy "flying saucers" served a very good purpose in getting around
meat rationing because when a sheep was killed, obviously for table use, the
blame was put to falling ice. The stories ended when a chemical examination
of the only authentic case of such a fall showed the ice to have uric acid in
it. This led to a change in the sanitation routines aboard the BOAC planes!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: The writer does not agree with this as it would almost immediately
fall into the hands of the press and the ensuing publicity would
be a strong deterrent to the receipt of reports.
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-11-
Astronomer BB has made no sighting personally, but informed the
writer that he would talk to a reputable committee of scientists if he did see
anything.
Astronomer CC has made no sightings himself although he has been in
a very good position to do so. He was reluctant to discuss the matter to any
extent.
Astronomer DD, with a top professional rating, has seen nothing per-
sonally, nor does he know of any of his associates who have. Interested in
the problem, he feels that a scientific panel could provide the answer.
Astronomer EE has never seen any unexplainable objects. He has seen
a phenomenon which most people would have said was a "flying saucer". This
turned out to be a beacon light describing a cone of light, part of which
intercepted a high cirrus cloud. This led to a series of elliptical lights
moving in one direction and never coming back.
Astronomer FF has seen none himself, but recently received a report
from a ranger who said he was an amateur astronomer; he reported a bright light
but said that it was not a meteor. Astronomer FF said his recitation of the
incident was very dramatic. Astronomer FF suggested sending up a control
"flying saucer" to see how many reports come back. Apparently he had in
mind an extremely bright rocket or perhaps a spectacular balloon. (See footnote)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: Again, I do not think much of this astronomer's suggestion. It
would serve to tell us how many people will report an unusual in-
cident, which number can be compared with the number of people who
report a typical sighting; if the numbers agree then this would be some proof
that an actual object had been sighted in the latter cases. The confusion
that would be created by this maneuver is hardly worth the while. Recently,
the balloon sighting over Columbus gives us, in effect, the same results that
Astronomer FF suggested. Certainly in this case hundreds, if not thousands
or more people saw the balloons which, incidentally, were not spectacularly
(Footnote continued on page 12.)
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-12-
Astronomer GG, with an excellent professional standing, and coopera-
tive and highly respected, has made no sightings personally. He concurs with
others that a committee of scientists to approach the problem of flying saucers
would be a good idea. Astronomer GG had the suggestion that St. Elmo's fire
should be induced artificially to see if this is one of the causes of the
numerous sightings of lights by pilots.
Astronomer HH, whose professional rating is excellent, has made no
sightings personally. He agreed that the conditions under which he would talk
would be complete anonymity in reporting to a committee or even to one reputable
astronomer in whom he had full confidence.
Astronomer II, with an adequate professional rating, has made two
sightings personally. The sightings were two years apart. The first sighting,
which was witnessed also by an astronomer not interviewed on this trip,
occurred in this manner: A transport plane travelling west made quite a bit
of noise and Astronomer II looked up to watch it. He then noticed, above the
transport and going north, a cluster of five ball-bearing-like objects. They
moved rapidly and were not in sight very long. Two years after this sighting,
he sighted a single such object which disappeared from sight by accelerating,
probably by turning but not by going up quickly. Astronomer II is willing to
cooperate but does not wish to have notoriety. Nevertheless, he would furnish
further details, and Observers Questionnaires Should be sent to him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote Continued: bright and could easily have escaped detection. It is
interesting to note that the public at large is becoming
more aware of things which might pass for flying saucers and are becoming less
gullible and trigger happy. The quality of reports should be going up, and it
seems that greater degree or credence can be given to sightings reported by a
group of people in each case. It is becoming less likely that any large group
or people will be fooled by ordinary or even unusual aircraft, balloons, or
meteors. This was not the case before the turn of the half century.
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-13-
Astronomer JJ has made no sightings himself, but agrees on the
policy of reporting to a duly constituted panel if he should sec any.
Astronomer KK has made no sightings and was not particularly inter-
ested in the problem.
Astronomer LL, Dr. La Paz, has already had so much publicity in _Life_
magazine that there appears to be no reason for keeping his name secret. He
is the Director of the Institute of Meteorics at the University of New
Mexico, and is cooperative in the extreme. One sighting of his has been
described in _Life_ magazine and also fully in OSI reports. He has made exten-
sive reports about the green fireball sightings in New Mexico in OSI reports
also.
The discussion of green fireballs with many astronomers disclosed
that most of them were of the opinion that those were natural objects. How-
ever, close questioning revealed that they knew nothing of the actual sightings,
of their frequency or anything much about them, and therefore cannot be taken
seriously. This is characteristic of scientists in general when speaking
about subjects which are not in their own immediate field of concern.
Dr. La Paz has on only one green fireball himself, but has been avid in
collecting reports on the others. Because his full reports are in the OSI
files, only the salient points will be discussed here. It appears that the
green fireballs can be characterized by being extremely bright, most of them
lighting up the sky in the day time, estimated magnitude -12, which is extremely
bright. They appear to come in bunches and at one time 10 were observed in
13 days. No noise is associated with them despite their brightness, The
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-14-
light appears to be homogeneous, and their light curve resembles a square wave,
that is, it comes on abruptly, remains constant while burning, and goes out
exceedingly abruptly, as though it is snapped out by a push-button. They leave
no trails or trains. As to their color, La Paz is aware of the fact that other
meteors have a green color, but he insists that this is a different green,
corresponding to the green line in the copper spectrum (5218 Angstrom units).
These objects generally move in a preferential north-south, south-north
direction.
If these data are correct, that is, if this many objects actually
were seen, all extremely bright, all having this particular green color, all
exhibiting no noise, all showing a preferential direction, all being homo-
geneous in light intensity, all snapping out very quickly, and all leaving no
trails, then we can say with assurance that these were not astronomical objects.
In the first place, any object as bright as this should have been reported from
all over the world. This does not mean that any one object could have been
seen all over the world, but if the earth in its orbit encountered, for some
strange reason, a group of very large meteors, there is no reason that they
should all show up in New Mexico. Besides, copper is not a plentiful element
in meteors, and the typical fireball goes from dim to bright to very bright to
bright and then fades out fairly fast, often breaking into many parts. They
frequently leave a trail of smoke in the daytime and of luminescence at night.
It is recommended that the OSI reports be obtained, and that the sightings of
these fireballs be examined in detail.
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-15-
If the data as reported by La Paz are correct, then we do have a strange
phenomena here indeed.
Astronomer MM has not seen any. He happened to be with me, how-
ever, while I interviewed some laymen who had seen some aluminum-colored discs,
He was most impressed by the consistency of their stories.
Astronomer NN is Clyde Tombaugh, who has already been identified in
the _Life_ article. He has made two sightings, the first of which is the one
reported in _Life_ magazine and the second was reported to me. The details can
be obtained by sending him a questionnaire, as he is willing to cooperate.
Briefly, while at Telescope No. 3 at White Sands, he observed an object of -6
magnitude(four times brighter than the planet Venus at its brightest)travelling
from the zenith to the southern horizon in about three seconds. The object
executed the same maneuvers as the nighttime luminous object which was reported
in _Life_ magazine. No sound was associated With either of the sightings.
Mr. Tombaugh is in charge of optics design and rocket tracking at
White Sands Proving Ground. He said that if he is requested officially, which
can be done by a letter to the Commanding General, Flight Determination
Laboratory, White Sands Proving Ground, Las Cruces, New Mexico, he will be
able to put his telescopes at White Sands at the disposal of the Air Force.
He can have observers alerted and ready to take photographs should some object
appear. I strongly recommend that this letter be sent.
Astronomer OO is a meteor observer at the Harvard Meteor Station in
New Mexico. Although relatively new on the job, he observed two lights while
on watch at 1:30 a.m. that moved much too fast for a plane and much too slow
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-16-
for a meteor. The two lights were white and moved in a parallel direction.
It is recommended that an Observer's Questionnaire be sent to this observer,
as his sighting bears a resemblance to the sighting made by Astronomer R. It
was impossible to obtain full details of these sightings because this would
have classed me as an official investigator. The details of these sightings
should be obtained by official questionnaires.
A meteorologist at the Lowell Observatory is identified here as
observer PP. He was not interviewed, but a clipping was obtained from a
Flagstaff newspaper covering his observations made on May 27, 1950. The object
was observed between 12:15 and 12:20 p.m. on Saturday, May 20, from the grounds
of the Lowell Observatory. The object presented a bright visible disc to the
naked eye and passed moderately rapidly in front of a fractocumulus cloud in
the northwest. Upon passing in front of the cloud its appearance changed from
that of a bright object to a dark object, due to the change in contrast. No
engine noise was heard, nor was there any exhaust. It seems that this might
have been a weather balloon but in this case it would be strange if this
meteorologist would become confused by it. He reports that it was not moving
with the wind, but across the wind.
Finally, in this survey or astronomers, my associates and I at the
Perkins Observatory should be included. There are six of us there, and to
the best of my knowledge, none of us has ever seen any unexplainable object in
the skies.
While in Albuquerque, I met, through Dr. La Paz, a Dr. Everton Conger,
Instructor in Journalism at the University of New Mexico. On July 27, 1948,
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-17-
between 8:35 and 8:45 a.m. he noticed a disc-shaped object in the sky. It was
flat and round like a flat plate. It appeared to be made of duraluminum and
gave off reflected light very similar to the light reflected from a highly
polished airplane wing. The full details of his sighting are in my notes. I
obtained his cooperation and he would be very glad to fill out an official
questionnaire.
I also interviewed, while in Albuquerque, Mr. Redman and Mr. Morris,
the two gentlemen whose picture appeared in _Life_ magazine in the now-famous
article on flying saucers. I questioned them separately and found that their
stories were remarkably consistent. Indeed, since they viewed the object from
widely different parts of the city, there is some possibility that the parallax
of the object can be obtained by making theodolite sightings now on where the
object appeared to them. The position of the object can be identified now
because it was viewed close to a canyon in the mountains, Dr. La Paz has
kindly offered to obtain the parallax of this object for us.
_SUMMARY_AND_DISCUSSION_
Over 40 astronomers were interviewed of which five had made sightings
of one sort or another. This is a a higher percentage than among the populace
at large. Perhaps this is to be expected, since astronomers do, after all,
watch the skies. On the other hand, they will not likely be fooled by balloons,
aircraft, and similar objects, as may the general populace.
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-18-
It is interesting to remark upon the attitude of the astronomers
interviewed. The great majority were neither hostile nor overly interested;
they gave one the general feeling that all flying saucer reports could be ex-
plained as misrepresentations of well-known objects and that there was nothing
intrinsic in the situation to cause concern. I took the time to talk rather
seriously with a few of them, and to acquaint them with the fact that some of
the sightings were truly puzzling and not at all easily explainable. Their
interest was almost immediately aroused, indicating that their general lethargy
is due to lack of information on the subject. And certainly another contributing
factor to their desire not to talk about these things is their overwhelming
fear of publicity. One headline in the national papers to the effect that
"Astronomer Sees Flying Saucer" would be enough to brand the astronomer as
questionable among his colleagues. Since I was able to talk with the men in
confidence, I was able to gather very much more of their inner thoughts on the
subject than a reporter or an interrogator would have been able to do. Actual
hostility is rare; concern with their own immediate scientific problems is too
great. There seems to be no convenient method by which to attack this problem,
and most astronomers do not wish to become involved, not only because of the
danger of publicity but because the data seem tenuous and unreliable.
Therefore, it is my considered recommendation that the following
procedure be adopted by the Air Force:
First, the problem of unidentified aerial objects should be given the
status of a scientific problem. In any scientific problem, the data are
gathered with meticulous care and are weighed and considered, without rush, by
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-19-
entirely competent men. Therefore, it is proposed that some reputable group
of scientists be asked to examine recent sightings which have already gone
through one or two screenings. If this group becomes convinced that the data
are worthy of being treated as a scientific problem, that is, that the sightings
are valid and that unexplained phenomena really do exist, then they should be
asked to vouch that these data are "worthy of being admitted into court".
Armed with this scientific opinion, various scientific societies should be
approached. The American Physical Society, the American Astronomical Society,
and the Optical Society of America are suggested, in particular. These Societies
should be asked, in view of the validity of the data, to appoint one or more
members to constitute a panel to advise ATIC and perhaps to direct the neces-
sary researches into the phenomena. This would serve not only to work toward
an ultimate solution of the problem, but in the meantime would lend dignity
to the project.
In short, either the phenomena which have been observed are worthy
of scientific attention or they are not. If they are, then the entire problem
should be treated scientifically and without fanfare. It is presumed that the
scientific panel would work with the full knowledge and cooperation of the
general contractor, but would not be bound by secrecy, which would tend to
hamper their work. It is possible that this panel might be a panel in the RDB,
similar to those in geodesy, infrared, or upper atmospheric research.
In the meantime, it is recommended that the Air Force approach the
Joint Chiefs of Staff for endorsement of a considered statement of philosophy
and policy for presentation to the public press, There is much confusion in
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-20-
the public mind as to what is being done about the situation, add a great deal
of needless criticism is being directed toward the Air Forces for "trying to
cover up!" or "dismissing the whole thing". The considered statement to the
public press that the problem is being considered as a scientific one and is
being referred to competent scientists in various fields should do a very great
deal in satisfying the public clamour.
It may be, of course, that this proposal will not get beyond the first
step. The scientist, or scientists, who examine the carefully screened evidence
may decide there still is not enough evidence to admit the problem into the
court of scientific appeal. Personally, I hardly think that this will be the
case, since the number of truly puzzling incidents is now impressive.
The second stage may be a long one. The first effort should be to
determine with great accuracy what the phenomena to be explained really are
and to establish their reality beyond all question.
Third stage would be the eventual publication of the findings of the
scientific panel. This might take the form of a progress report. If, for
instance, the scientific chase is led into a detailed examination of atmospheric
optics, one can envision, perhaps, many years of work. This however, is the
price one pays for a truly scientific investigation.
One final item is that the flying-saucer sightings have not died
down, as was confidently predicted some years ago when the first deluge of
sightings was regarded as mass hysteria. Unless the problem is attacked
scientifically, we can look forward to periodic recurrences or flying-saucer
reports. It appears, indeed, that the flying saucer along with the automobile
is here to stay, and if we can't shoo it away, we must try to understand it.
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-21-
_APPENDIX_
While in Los Angeles, I was asked to appear in a TV program with
Gerald Herd, the BBC science analyst; with Walter Riddel, the rocket expert;
and with Aldous Huxley. They were to have a round-table discussion on flying
saucers. I declined immediately but was prevailed upon to be in the studio
when the program was in progress. I am afraid that my presence as an astronomer
"cramped their style" to a great degree, but nonetheless the program had the
general effect of convincing the hearers that flying saucers did exist. There
was very little constructive about the program. It consisted of a rehash of
all the things we have heard so much about already. It might be profitable,
for instance, to have a TV program, sponsored by the Air Force, acquainting
the public with the problem of flying saucers as a scientific problem. Though
suggested jokingly, there might be some point to this, if this investigation
ever gets to the scientific panel stage.
JAH:eg
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
This document consists of 5 pages
No.__{5}__of 32 copies, series A.
RESTRICTED {/s/ F.H. McGovern}
AUTH: CO, ATIC {Capt}
INITIALS: F. H. McGovern, {USAF}
Captain, USAF
Date: September 10, 1952
FIFTH STATUS REPORT
on
CONTRACT AF-19741, PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
September 10, 1952
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12138
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
_TABLE_OF_CONTENTS_
_Page_
Interrogation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Analysis of Existing Sighting Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Newspaper Clipping Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12138
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
FIFTH STATUS REPORT
on
CONTRACT AF-19741, PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
September 10, 1952
This report describes progress on this project for the period from
August 11, 1952, to September 10, 1952.
_Interrogation_Forms_
About 800 copies of the revised Tentative Observers Questionnaire,
Exhibit A of the Fourth Status Report, dated August 11, 1952, were prepared
and sent to ATIC. A great many of these were sent out by ATIC to observers
to be filled out and returned. That was considered a "trial test" of the
questionnaire.
More than 100 of the completed questionnaires have been returned to
us. These are now being studied by Dr. Paul M. Fitts and his associates in
the Aviation Psychology Department at Ohio State University. The final
revisions of the questionnaire will be made as results of this study show that
revisions are needed. The Final Observers Questionnaire is expected to be
completed and sent to ATIC during September.
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12138
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
-2-
_Analysis_of_Existing_Sighting_Reports_
Work has continued on the coding of sighting reports to make possible
an analysis by IBM machines. The reports for 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1951 are
nearly completed. Considerable time was spent during August in conferences at
which final evaluations were made on sightings for these years. These final
evaluations were needed to put into the IBM system for use in future analysis.
The final evaluation conference was conducted by ATIC and our personnel. It
is believed that this method or evaluation of sightings is adding greatly to
the over-all analysis. It is, however, taking additional time.
It had previously been estimated that all of the backlog of files
could be coded and placed in the IBM system by September 15, 1952. However,
during the past few months, sighting reports have been accumulating at an
unprecedented rate. In fact, the up-to-date 1952 file now contains nearly as
many sightings as all previous years together. Therefore, the task of
coding and analyzing the file has approximately doubled during recent months.
For this reason, considerably more time will be needed to put the sighting
reports on a current basis and to complete the analysis. Some of the IBM
cards are now being prepared and preliminary analyses are being started.
_Newspaper_Clipping_Service_
As requested by ATIC, an order has been issued to discontinue this
service on October 1, 1952.
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12138
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
-3-
_Future_Work_
The coding of sighting reports will be continued and analyses will
be started using the IBM system.
A Final Observers Questionnaire will be completed in September.
Special attention will be given to certain sightings by the panel
of consultants, as is found necessary in the final evaluation conferences.
PJR:eg
September 24, 1952
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12138
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
This document consists of 5 pages
No.__{5}__of 32 copies, series A.
RESTRICTED {/s/ F.H. McGovern}
AUTH: CO, ATIC {Capt}
INITIALS: F. H. McGovern, {USAF}
Captain, USAF
Date: October 10, 1952
SIXTH STATUS REPORT
on
CONTRACT AF-19741, PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTEERSON AIR FORCE BASE
October 10, 1952
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12141
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
_TABLE_OF_CONTENTS_
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SIGHTING REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Analysis of Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Soil and Vegetation Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Consultant on Astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
INTERROGATION FORMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FUTURE WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
EXHIBIT I.
Tentative Observer's Data Sheet
Summary of Data from 168 Completed Tentative
Observer's Questionnaires
EXHIBIT II
Form A.
Form B.
T52-12141
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
SIXTH STATUS REPORT
on
CONTRACT AF-19741, PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
October 10, 1952
This report describes progress for the period from September 11, 1952,
to October 10, 1952.
_ANALYSIS_OF_EXISTING_SIGHTING_REPORTS_
Work has continued on the coding of sighting reports to permit
analysis by IBM machines. Reports up to and including 1951 are completed
except for final evaluation of about 40 per cent of them. It is anticipated
that final evaluation of all reports of sightings previous to 1952 will be
completed during the month of October, in conference with ATIC personnel.
Therefore, by the end of October all sighting reports for the years 1947, 1948,
1949, 1950, and 1951 will be ready as a group for preliminary analysis on IBM
equipment.
Sighting reports for the first four months of 1952 were received
late in September. Coding of these early 1952 reports was begun and should
be completed, except for final evaluation, by October 20. Because the quality
and quantity of information in many of the 1952 sighting reports has improved
T52-12141
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-2-
and in many cases more than one sighting is included in the folder, more time
was required for coding these reports than for earlier ones.
Because sighting reports accumulated at a rapid rate in May, June,
and July, 1952, and in general were more detailed than earlier reports, it is
estimated that it will require until the latter part of November, 1952, to
complete processing and evaluation of these reports for IBM analysis.
_MISCELLANEOUS_SPECIAL_ASSIGNMENTS_
The panel of consultants was utilized during the month to advantage
on the following topics:
_Analysis_of_Film_
Two rolls of 35-mm spectrographic film and a section of gun-camera
spectrographic film, furnished by the Air Force for analysis, were examined
by experts on spectroscopy. After examination of the film, it was found im-
practical to proceed further with the analysis without more data. Although
would be possible by indirect methods to arrive at limited conclusions regarding
the sources of light that were photographed. The expense would be prohibitive.
Further data needed for analysis of film should be derived from controlled
experiments using known sources of light, and from information on the following
factors:
1. Type of camera
2. Shutter speed
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12141
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-3-
3. Aperture opening
4. Range
5. Type of grid used and details of grid construction
6. Type of film used
Simple standards could be established by which it should be possible
to determine the source of light photographed with the camera and spectrographic
equipment, at relatively little expense. It is believed that the camera and
equipment will be most useful when the light is emitted by a single chemical
element. If two or more elements are involved, analysis will be difficult with
this simple recording device.
_Soil_and_Vegetation_Samples_
During the month, two sets of soil and vegetation samples were
studied by an agricultural specialist and by physicists.
Regarding the "Florida" samples, no difference was observed between
the two samples of soil, but it was found that the root structure of the plants
from the area in question was degenerated, apparently by heat, while the root
structure of a control sample was undisturbed. In addition, the lower leaves,
those nearest the ground under normal conditions, were slightly deteriorated,
apparently by heat. No logical explanation is possible for this alteration
of the first sample, beyond the suggestion that a high soil temperature around
the plants could have been the cause. No radioactivity was found in any of
these samples.
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12141
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-4-
Regarding the "Kansas" samples, no difference was found between
either the soil or the vegetation from the two areas from which the specimens
were obtained. These samples are now being examined for radioactivity.
_Consultant_on_Astronomy_
Advice and assistance from Dr. J. Allen Hynek was received during the
month concerning astronomical objects mistaken as "flying saucers". A few
fundamental rules which had been given before were further elaborated.
Dr. Hynek also gave ten consulting hours to the task of improving the questions
in the latest revised questionnaire.
_INTERROGATION_FORMS_
During July, August, and September, Dr. Paul M. Fitts and associates
of the Aviation Psychology Department of Ohio State University have served
as consultants on the preparation of a questionnaire that would permit the
United States Air Force to obtain a maximum of useful information from those
persons who report sightings or unidentified aerial objects. Insofar as
possible, the following criteria were used in designing the questionnaire:
1. To develop questions which could transfer from the
observer to the U. S. Air Force as much detailed
information as possible concerning the event, without
the necessity of a personal interview.
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12141
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-5-
2. To develop questions that would permit some
evaluation of the accuracy and reliability
of the observer and his report.
3. To develop questions that could be:
(a) easily understood by a majority of the public,
(b) answered with minimum effort on the part of
the observer, and
(c) objectively and easily recorded, and trans-
ferred to an automatic machine filing system.
To meet the first criterion adequately, some questions were taken
from the first "Tentative Observer's Data Sheet". Suggestions and advice from
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Professor of Astronomy, Ohio State University, were
requested and used, and other questions, believed to be important and useful,
were devised. A copy of the second draft of the "Tentative Observer's Data
Sheet" is included as Exhibit I of this report. In general, most or the
questions in the second draft seem to fall in one of the following informational
categories:
1. When the event occurred, and where the observer
was located at the time of the sighting,
2. A description of the viewing conditions,
3. A description of the phenomenon itself.
The second draft or the "Tentative Observer's Data Sheet" was
designed for a trial test for selecting and improving questions for the final
questionnaire. Over 300 of these questionnaires were sent to observers by ATIC.
Replies to 168 of them were analyzed. On the basis of this analysis, a
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12141
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-6-
summary of these replies is included in Exhibit I of this report. A new
questionnaire, the "U. S. Air Force Technical Information Sheet" has been
designed, in which several questions were omitted, some were revised, and
others added. As an example, it was found that many observers were unable to
reply to the question which asked for an estimation of the "real" size of the
object. This question was restated in the form of an "apparent" size.
A sample of the "U. S. Air Force Technical Information Sheet", is
given as exhibit II of this report, Form _A_ is for specific data, and Form _B_
is for a short verbal summary expressed in the observer's own words.
Multiple-choice questions, completion questions, and drawings are
used throughout the final questionnaire so as to get as accurate a description
as possible. The multiple-choice question is well adapted for use in large-
scale statistical studies.
The second criterion used in preparing the questionnaire is most
difficult to achieve. As far as possible, questions were worded to provide a
check on the consistency and competence of the observer.
The best check of consistency would be to have the observer answer
the questionnaire twice with an interval of time separating the two replies.
Since this is not practical, it was decided that the next best way would be to
have the observer fill in an objective multiple-choice section and, in addition,
write out a summary description in a summary data sheet. Any obvious discrep-
ancies between information given in this description and that given in the
questionnaire would make the observer's replies questionable.
An evaluation of the observer's personality traits and mental com-
petence is likewise difficult to achieve in such a questionnaire. In addition
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12141
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-7-
to the low validity of standardized questionnaires specifically designed to
test these aspects of the individual, the restriction exists that the observer
should not detect that his competence is being considered. In spite of the
limitations, it was decided to include several questions which might operate
indirectly to reveal any severely abnormal factors. Two questions (No. 24 and
No. 38) were inserted for the specific purpose of detecting replies of the
fanatic and over-imaginative individual. A reasonable assumption is that the
person who uses fantastic explanations and descriptions, and who appears to be
convinced that the sighting was produced by unknown creatures or interplanetary
visitors, is not likely to be a discerning observer, It is further proposed
that such individuals will be prone to fabricate details, and suffer severe
memory distortions when recounting the event.
Questions Nos. 5.1 and 22.1 are intended to indicate the over-anxious
respondent. With the exception of a few instances in which accurate measure-
ments may be made, normally one would not expect an observer to be "certain"
that he had seen an object for a specific time or of a specific apparent size.
Again, these types of data can be subjected to controlled experimentation in
which observers make estimates of duration and of size,together with certainty
ratings.
Question No. 26 is an important question if No. 36.1 receives a
negative reply, and if the duration of the sighting were of sufficient length
that one could reasonably expect other observers also to see the object. If
this is the case, then one would suspect that the sighting was a result of
individual factors.
An effort was made to satisfy the third criterion for the questionnaire
by using simple language and nontechnical terminology. It is recognized that
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ] T52-12141
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-8-
this requirement would not permit many trained observers (scientists, pilots,
etc.) to present important technical data, therefore it is recommended that a
different questionnaire be used or that different channels be employed for
communicating with this select group of individuals.
Whenever possible, the questions were written in multiple-choice form,
so that they could be easily answered and accurately recorded, If it appeared
that too many categories would be needed to cover all possible responses, or
if the categories would lead to doubtful or erroneous interpretation, then the
question was worded so that the observer could fill in his own answer. A large
number of the questions permit the observer to give a "Don't Know" or a "Don't
Remember" response, and thus do not force a guess or an incorrect answer.
It was decided that the observer should be asked to circle the correct
answer to the multiple-choice items, thereby allowing minimum ambiguity in the
instructions and maximum objective scoring. Systems such as checking or under-
lining the correct answer are often misinterpreted by the respondent because of
previous experience with various ambiguous checking and "X-ing" systems, such
as voting procedures.
It is anticipated that when a sufficient sample of replies has been
received from the second questionnaire that further minor revisions will appear
necessary.
_FUTURE_WORK_
One-thousand copies of the "U. S. Air Force Technical Information
Sheet" (Form A and Form B) will be printed and made available to ATIC in the
near future.
T52-12141
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
-9-
Results of tests for radiation on the "Kansas" soil and vegetation
sample will be completed.
The coding and evaluation of 1952 sighting reports will continue,
and analysis of these reports will be started using the IBM system. Final
evaluation, in conference with ATIC personnel, will be completed on all
remaining unevaluated sighting reports dated before 1952.
PJR/VWE:eg
October 23, 1952
T52-12141
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
EXHIBIT I. TENTATIVE OBSERVER'S QUESTIONNAIRE.
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM 168 COMPLETED
TENTATIVE OBSERVER'S QUESTIONNAIRES.
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
UNCLASSIFIED
_TENTATIVE_
_OBSERVERS_QUESTIONNAIRE_
=============================================================================
_SECTION_A_
1. When did you see the object:
1.1 Date:________ ____________ _______
Day Month Year
1.2 Time of Day:_______ ___________ A.M. or P.M. (Circle One)
Hrs. Min.
1.3 Time Zone: (Circle One):
a. Eastern d. Pacific
b. Central e. Other
c. Mountain
(Circle One): a. Daylight Saving
b. Standard
1.4 Circle one of the following to indicate how certain you are of
your answer to the above question 1.2:
a. Certain c. Not very sure
b. Fairly certain d. Just a guess
2. Where were you when you saw the object:
_______________________________ _______________ _________ _________
Postal Address City or Town State Country
Additional Remarks: _____________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
3. Where were you located when you saw the object:
(Circle One); a. Inside a building d. In an airplane
b. In a car e. At sea
c. Outdoors f. Other
3.1 Were you:
(Circle one): a. In the business section of a city?
b. In the residential section of a city?
c. In open countryside?
d. Flying near an airfield?
e. Flying over a city?
f. Flying over open country?
g. Other
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
Page 2
4. How did you happen to notice the object? __________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
5 When did you report to some official that you had seen the object?
___________ _________________ __________
Day Month Year
============================================================================
_SECTION_B_
6. What were you doing at the time you saw the object?
6.1 What had you been doing for the 30 minutes before you saw the object?
Try to list the activity or activities and the approximate amount
of time spent on each.
7. Were you moving at any time while you saw the object? (Circle One):
_Yes_ or _No_
IF you answered _YES_, then complete the following questions:
7.1 What direction were you moving?
(Circle One): a. North e. South
b. Northeast f. Southwest
c. East g. West
d. Southeast h. Northwest
7.2 How fast were you moving? _____________ miles per hour.
7.3 Did you stop at any time while you were looking at the object?
(Circle One): _Yes_ or _No_
8. What direction were you looking when you first saw the object?
(Circle One): a. North e. South
b. Northeast f. Southwest
c. East g. West
d. Southeast h. Northwest
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
Page 3
8.1 What direction were you looking when the object disappeared?
(Circle One): a. North e. South
b. Northeast f. Southwest
c. East g. West
d. Southeast h. Northwest
8.2 _Circle_one_ of the following to indicate how certain you are of
your answer to the above question and preceding question (8 and
8.1).
a. Certain c. Not very sure
b. Fairly certain d. Just a guess
9. Were you wearing eye glasses when you saw the object? (circle One):
_Yes_ or _No_
10. How was the object seen?
(Circle One): a. Through window glass e. Through theodolite
b. Through windshield f. Through sunglasses
c. Through binoculars g. Through open space
d. Through telescope h. Other _______________
11. What do you remember about the weather conditions at the time you saw the
object?
11.1 CLOUDS (Circle One) 11.3 WEATHER (Circle One):
a. Clear sky a. Dry
b. Hazy b. Fog, Mist, or light rain
c. Scattered clouds c. Moderate or heavy rain
d. Thick or heavy clouds d. Snow
e. Don't remember e. Don't remember
11.2 WIND (Circle One) 11.4 TEMPERATURE (Circle One)
a. No wind a. Cold
b. Slight breeze b. Cool
c. Strong wind c. Warm
d. Don't remember d. Hot
e. Don't remember
========================================================================
_SECTION_C_
12. Estimate how long you saw the object? _________ ____________ _________
hours Minutes Seconds
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
Page 4
12.1 Circle one of the following to indicate how certain you are of your
answer to question 12:
a. Certain c. Not very sure
b. Fairly sure d. Just a guess
13. Did the object look: (Circle One) _Solid_ or _Transparent_
14. Did the object at any time:
(Circle One for each question)
14.1 Change direction? _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
14.2 Change speed? _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
14.3 Change size? _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
14.4 Change color? _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
14.5 Break up into parts or _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
explode?
14.6 Give off smoke? _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
14.7 Change brightness _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
14.8 Flicker, throb, or _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
pulsate?
14.9 Remain motionless _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
15. Did the object give off a light? (Circle One): _Yes_ _No_ _Don't know_
15.1 IF you answered YES, what was the color of the light? ______________
16. Tell in a few words the following things about the object?
16.1 Sound ___________________________________________________
16.2 Color ___________________________________________________
17. IF there was MORE THAN ONE object, then how many were there? __________
Draw a picture of how they were arranged and put an arrow to show the
direction they were traveling.
18. Did the object at any time:
18.1 Move behind something? (Circle One) _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
IF you answered YES, then tell what it moved behind.
________________________________________________________________
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] PagUNCLASSIFIED
18.2 Move in front of something? (Circle One) _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
IF you answered YES, then tell what it moved in front of.
10.3 Blend with the background? (Circle One) _Yes_ _No_ _Don't_know_
19. Which of the following objects is about the same actual size as the object
you saw? (Circle One):
a. Pea f. Automobile
b. Baseball g. Small airplane
c. Basketball h. Large airplane
c. Bicycle wheel i. Dirigible
e. Office desk j. Other
19.1 _Circle one_ of the following to indicate how certain you are of your
answer to Question 19.
a. Certain c. Not very sure
b. Fairly certain d. Uncertain
20. Try to tell the following things about the object:
20.1 How high above the earth was it? _____________feet.
20.2 How far was it from you? ___________feet or ____________miles.
20.3 How fast was it going? _____________ miles per hour.
20.4 Circle one of the following to indicate how certain you are of your
answer to the above questions:
a. Certain c. Not very sure
b. Fairly certain d. Uncertain
21. How did the object disappear from view?
(Circle One): a. Suddenly c. Other ____________
b. Gradually d. Don't remember
==========================================================================
_SECTION_D_
22. In the following sketch, imagine your eye at the point shown. Place an "A"
on the curved line to show how high the object was above the horizon
(skyline) when you _first_ saw it. Place a "B" to show where it was when
you _last_ saw it.
Overhead
|
|* *
| *
| *
| *
|________*___________Horizon
You
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
Page 6
23. In the following sketch place an "A" at the position the object was when
you _first_ saw it, and a "B" at its position when you _last_ saw it.
Overhead
* ** *
* *
* *
* *
Horizon ____*________________*____ Horizon
You
24. Draw a picture that will show the motion that the object made. Place an
"A" at the beginning of its path and a "B" at the end of its path.
25. Draw a picture that will show the shape of the object, Label and include
in your sketch any details of the object that you saw and place an arrow
beside the drawing to show the direction the object was moving.
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
Page 7
===========================================================================
_SECTION_E_
26. Was this the first time that you have seen an object like this?
(Circle One): _Yes_ or _No_
26.1 IF you answered NO, then when, where, and under what conditions did
you see other ones?_______________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
27. In your opinion what do you think the object was and what might have caused
it?
28. Give the following information about yourself:
NAME__________________________ __________________ _________________
Last Name First Name Middle Name
ADDRESS ______________________ _______________ ____ ______________
Street City Zone State
TELEPHONE NUMBER _______________________
What is your present job? ______________________________________________
Age ______________
Sex ______________
29. Was anyone else with you at the time you saw the object?
(Circle One): _Yes_ or _No_
29.1 IF you answered YES, did they see the object too?
(Circle One): _Yes_ or _No_
29.2 Please list their names and addresses:
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
Page 8
30. Please add here any further comments which you believe are important.
Use additional sheets of the same size paper, if necessary.
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
_SUMMARY_OF_DATA_FROM_168_COMPLETED
_TENTATIVE_OBSERVER'S_QUESTIONNAIRES*_
Q. 1.2 Time of day.
Per Cent Per Cent
0000-0100 3.0 1201-1300 0.6
0101-0200 0.6 1301-1400 1.2
0201-0300 2.4 1401-1500 3.0
0301-0400 3.0 1501-1600 2.4
0401-0500 0.0 1601-1700 1.8
0501-0600 0.6 1701-1800 3.5
0601-0700 0.6 1801-1900 4.1
0701-0800 1.8 1901-2000 9.5
0801-0900 1.8 2001-2100 17.9
0901-1000 2.4 2101-2200 17.3
1001-1100 4.0 2201-2300 5.3
1101-1200 1.8 2301-2400 9.5
Inaccurate 1.8
Q. 1.4 Certainty rating.
a. Certain 75.5%
b. Fairly certain 17.45%
c. Not very sure 1.8%
d. Just a guess 1.2%
e. No response 4.2%
Q. 3 Where were you located when you saw the object?
a. Inside a building 5.9%
b. In a car 14.9%
c. Outdoors 78.6%
d. In an airplane 0.6%
e. At sea 0.0%
f. Other 0.0%
Q. 3.1 Were you:
a. In the business section of a city? 5.3%
b. In the residential section of a city? 48.8%
c. In open countryside? 38.3%
d. Flying near an airfield? 0.0%
e. Flying over a city? 0.0%
f. Flying over open country? 1.2%
h. Other
(a) Near an airport or airbase 5.9%
(b) Mountains 0.6%
* The percentage figures are based on the 16(8 completed questionnaires.
They show how the 168 people answered the questions.
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
Q. 7 Were you moving (in a vehicle) at any time while you saw
the object?
a. Yes 17.9%
b. No 82.1%
Q. 8 and 8.1 What direction were you facing when you first saw
the object, and what direction were you facing
when you last saw the object?
First saw (percentage)
N NE E SE S SW W NW
N 5.9 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.6 0 0.6 1.2
NE 2.4 5.3 1.8 0 0 0.6 0 1.2
E 1.2 0 7.2 0 0 0.6 0.6 0
SE 1.8 0.6 2.4 7.2 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.6
S 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.8 0 2.4 0.6
SW 0.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.6 4.1 0 0
W 1.2 0 1.2 0 1.8 1.8 7.7 1.2
NW 0.6 0 1.8 0 0.6 1.2 1.2 1.8
Incomplete: 10.7%
Q. 8.2 Certainty rating:
a. Certain 80.5%
b. Fairly certain 16.1%
c. Not very sure 1.2%
d. Just a guess 0.0%
e. No response 2.4%
Q. 9 Were you wearing eye glasses?
a. Yes 31.6%
b. No 63.7%
c. No response 4.7%
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
Q. 10 How was the object seen?
a. Through window glass 3.6%
b. Through windshield 7.8%
C. Through binoculars 12.6%
d. Through telescope 0.6%
e. Through theodolite 0.6%
f. Through sun glasses 0.6%
g. Through open space 69.5%
h. Other
(1) Porch screen 1.2%
i. No response 3.6%
Q. 11 Weather conditions,
CLOUDS (11.1)
a. Clear sky 74.8%
b. Hazy 2.4%
c. Scattered clouds 16.2%
d. thick or heavy clouds 4.2%
e. Don't remember 0.6%
f. No response 1.8%
WIND (11.2)
a. No wind 51.8%
b. Slight breeze 34.6%
c. Strong wind 1.2%
d. Don't remember 6.5%
e. No response 5.9%
WEATHER (11.3)
a. Dry 81.0%
b. Fog, mist, light rain 0.6%
c. Moderate or heavy rain 0.0%
d. Snow 0.0%
e. Don't remember 0.6%
f. No response 17.8%
TEMPERATURE (11,4)
a. Cold 1.8%
b. Cool 17.?%
c. Warm 52.6%
d. Hot 20.1%
e. Don't remember 0.6%
f. No response 7.1%
[ RESTRICTED ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
Q. 12 Estimate how long you saw the object.
a. 1 sec. to 10 sec. 25.6%
b. 11 sec. to 30 sec. 15.5%
c. 30 sec. to 1 min. 11.9%
d. 1 min. to 2 min. 6.5%
e. 2 min. to 5 min. 12.5%
f. 5 min. to 10 min. 7.7%
g. Over 10 min. 19.1%
h. No response 1.2%
Q. 12.1 Certainty rating.
a. Certain 49.4%
b. Fairly certain 40.8%
c. Not very sure 1.9%
d. Just a guess 4.3%
e. No response 3.7%
Q. 13 Did the object look:
a. Solid? 78.5%
b. Transparent? 4.8%
c. Don't know 3.6%
d. Both 0.6g
e. No response 12.6%
Q. 14 Did the object at any time:
Yes No Don't Know No R.
14.1 Change direction? 39.6 54.5 1.2 4.8
14.2 Change speed? 27.4 64.2 3.6 4.8
14.3 Change size? 14.9 75.1 1.2 8.9
14.4 Change color? 11.9 79.3 0.0 8.9
14.5 Break up or explode? 4.8 86.9 0.0 8.4
14.6 Give off smoke? 7.7 76.9 5.3 10.1
14.7 Change brightness? 20.2 72.1 1.2 6.6
14.8 Flicker, throb, etc.? 17.7 72.2 2.4 7.7
14.9 Remain motionless? 18.5 69.8 2.9 8.9
Q. 15 Did the object give off a light?
a. Yes 72.3%
b. No 22.3%
c. Don't know 3.6%
d. No response 1.8%
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
Q. 16 Sound and Color;
SOUND (16.1)
a. Yes 5.9%
b. No 89.9%
c. Unclassified 1.8%
d. Don't know 0.6%
e. No response 1.8%
COLOR (16.2)
a. Silver 16.2% g. White (blue-whit ) 24.2%
b. Pink 1.9% h. Green-blue 2.5%
c. Orange 13.0% i. Blue 4.9%
d. Green 1.9% j. Dark 3.1%
e. Gray 2.5% k. Red 2.5%
f. Yellow 14.9% l. Unclassified 4.9%
m. No response 7.5%
Q. 17 Was there more than one object? 30.9% responded _yes_, *
a. Two 38.5% g. Eight 5.7%
b. Three 19.2% h. Nine 1.9%
c. Four 5.7% i. Ten 1.9%
d. Five 17.6% j. Seventeen 1.9%
e. Six 1.9% k. Twenty 1.9%
r. Seven 1.9% 1. Twenty.five 1.9%
Q. 18.1 Did the object move behind something?
a. Yes 26.8%
b. No 64.9%
c. Don't know 5.9%
d. No response 2.5%
Q. 18.2 Did the object move in front of something?
a. Yes 5.9%
b. No 76.8%
c. Don't know 3.0%
d. No response 14.2%
Q. 18.2 Did the object move in front of something?
a. Yes 5.9%
b. No 76.8%
c. Don't know 3.0%
d. No response 14.2%
* Percentages below are per cent of the 30.9% that answered _yes_.
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
Q. 19 Size estimates:
a. Pea 19.1% j. Other:
b. Baseball 12.5% (1) 50-100 ft. 1.8%
c. Basketball 13.7% (2) 150 ft. 0.6%
d. Bicycle wheel 7.7% (3) Softball 4.8%
e. Office desk 1.2% (4) Football 1.2%
f. Automobile 2.5% (5) Star 5.4%
g. Small airplane 4.2% (6) ping-pong ball 2.5%
h. Large airplane 5.4% (7) 1/2O" x 1/4 (theodolite)0.6%
i. Dirigible 6.6% (8) Don't know 4.8%
(9) No response 5.4%
Q. 20 Certainty rating:
a. Certain 47.6%
b. Fairly certain 35.1%
c. Not very sure 5.4%
d. Just a guess 5.4%
e. No response 6.6%
Q. 20.1 How high above the earth was it?
a. 0-1000 ft. 8.4% e. Low 1.8%
b. 1001-5000 ft. 17.9% f. Don't know 28.2%
c. 5001-10,000 ft. 6.6% g. No response 11.4%
d. 10,000 & over 25.8%
Q. 20,2 How far was it from you?
a. 0-1000 ft. 3.0% e. Short distance 1.2%
b. 1001-5000 ft. 7.2% f. Don't know 1.2%
c. 5001-10,000 ft. 5.9% h. No response 16.6%
d. 10,000 ft. & over 38.4%
Q. 20.3 How fast was it going?
a. 0 mph 1.8% g. Slow 3.6%
b. 1-100 mph 9.0% h. Fast 8.4%
c. 101-200 mph 5.4% j. Don't know 23.5%
d. 201-500 mph 14.5% k. No response 15.7%
e. 501-1000 mph 9.0%
f. 1001-over mph 9.0%
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
Q. 20.4 Certainty rating:
a. Certain 18.1%
b. Fairly certain 26.g%
c. Not very Sure 12.0%
d. Just a guess 21.1%
e. No response 22.3%
Q. 21 How did the object disappear from view?
a. Suddenly 52.8%
b. Gradually 40.1%
c. Don't remember 0.6%
d. Didn't 0.6%
e. No response 5.9%
Q. 26 Was this the first time that you have seen an object like this?
a. Yes 91.6%
b. No 7.8%
c. No response 0.6%
Q. 29 Was anyone else with you at the time you saw the object?
a. Yes 75.6%
b. No 23.8%
c. No response 0.6%
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
EXHIBIT II. U. S. AIR FORCE TECHNICAL INFORMATION
SHEET, FORM A AND FORM B
UNCLASSIFIED
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ]
===========================================================================
{{ CUFON NOTE: following are 8 pages, all marked ["RESTRICTED"] }}
{{ ["SECURITY INFORMATION"], UNCLASSIFIED, containing the "U. S. }}
{{ AIR FORCE TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHEET", FORM A AND FORM B. }}
{{ This form is very difficult to reproduce using only ASCII }}
{{ characters and has been reproduced in several places so will }}
{{ not be reproduced here. For a copy of these pages see: }}
{{ }}
{{ _Project Blue Book_, edited by Brad Steiger, 1976, ConFucian }}
{{ Press and Ballantine Books, ISBN 0-345-34525-8 }}
===========================================================================
SEVENTH STATUS REPORT
on
CONTRACT AF-19741, PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
November 10, 19$2
===========================================================================
_TABLE OF CONTENTS_
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SIGHTING REPORTS . . . . . . . . 1
ANALYSIS OF SOIL AND VEGETATION SAMPLES . . . . . . . 2
CONSULTANT ON ASTRONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
INTERROGATION FORMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FUTURE WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
===========================================================================
SEVENTH STATUS REPORT
on
CONTRACT AF-19741, PPS-100
to
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
November 10, 1952
This report describes progress for the period from October 11, 1952,
to November 10, 1952.
_ANALYSIS_OF_EXISTING_SIGHTING_REPORTS_
Sighting reports dated up to and including June, 1952, have been
processed. Except for the reports dated 1947 and 1948, all sighting reports
up to and including March, 1952, have been evaluated. The sighting reports for
1947 and 1948 are not available for evaluation. As soon as the 1947 and 1948
reports are available and can be evaluated, all sighting reports for the years
1947 to 1951 will be ready as a group for preliminary analysis utilizing IBM
equipment.
Sighting reports for the month of July, 1952, have been received.
Because there are 450 sighting reports for July, processing them will not be
completed until the first week in December. Evaluation of reports for the
months of April, May, June, and July, 1952, will require about six days of con-
ference time. Conferences for the evaluation of sighting reports will be
arranged as reports become processed in groups of 2000. Each group of reports
will require about two days of work for a cooperating researcher-WPAFB
evaluation team.
===========================================================================
-2-
The evaluation of 1952 reports will be more time consuming than was
the case for earlier reports, because reports now are in more detail and often
consist of sightings of one object by more than one individual.
Since October 16, 1952, it has been necessary to establish a rotation
system for handling sighting reports, no more than 100 sighting reports being
permitted away from WPAFB at any one time. Questionnaires and work sheets com-
pleted here must therefore be put in duplicate folders before sighting reports
matching these questionnaires and work sheets are returned to WPAFB in return
for unprocessed sighting reports. When evaluation conferences are held, these
folders must be matched before an evaluation is made. The necessity for estab-
lishing a rotation system has caused some delay in progress.
_ANALYSIS_OF_SOIL_AND_VEGETATION_SAMPLES_
Two samples of vegetation and soil from Pittsburgh, Kansas, which
were submitted by WPAFB for analysis, have been thoroughly studied. Examination
by experts on soil and vegetation disclosed no difference between the two
samples from the two areas where the specimens were obtained. Tests for radio-
activity likewise showed no significant difference between the two samples of
soil and vegetation. Tests were made for beta, gamma, and alpha radiation.
Samples of the "Kansas" soil and the vegetation will be returned to WPAFB in
the near future.
_CONSULTANT_ON_ASTRONOMY_
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, of Ohio State University, attended the Boston
meeting of the Optical Society of America on October 11, 1952. The Society
===========================================================================
-3-
took cognizance this year of the many reports of unusual aerial phenomena by
including three invited papers on the subject in their otherwise straightforward
scientific meeting. One of the invited papers was by Dr. Hynek, entitled
"Unusual Aerial Phenomena". The other two papers were by Drs. Menzel and
Liddell, of Harvard Observatory and the Atomic Energy Commission, respectively.
The papers of Menzel and Liddell, though differing somewhat in con-
tent, were identical in spirit. Both papers were characterized by the fact
that numerous explanations for unexplained sightings were given without a
single reference to a specific sighting in the files of the Air Technical In-
telligence Command. Both papers presented a series of well-worn statements as
to how jet fighters, meteors, reflections from balloons and aircraft, and
optical effects, such as sundogs and mirages, could give rise to "flying saucer"
reports. Since there was nothing new in either of the two papers, the trip
from that standpoint was unproductive.
The paper by Dr. Hynek, in essence, was to the effect that flying
saucers represented a science-public relations problem that when a sighting
is made by several people, at least one of whom is an experienced observer,
the mutually corroborated reports are entitled to a scientific hearing, rather
than ridicule. It stressed the point that here was a subject in which the
public has shown great interest. It was recommended that the relatively few
well-screened reports be dealt with specifically to see whether any of the
causes suggested by Drs. Liddell and Menzel are applicable, and if so, to make
this known in these specific instances. On the other hand, if the suggested
explanations of Drs. Liddell and Menzel do not explain well-screened cases,
this should also be made known and given further scientific study.
===========================================================================
-4-
In conclusion, it was the opinion of Dr. Hynek that little was gained
by attendance at the meeting. The results were negative in the sense that it
was confirmed, as Dr. Hynek already believed, that Drs. Liddell and Menzel had
not studied the literature and the evidence and, hence, were not qualified to
speak with authority on the subject of recent sightings of unidentified aerial
phenomena.
An attempt to arrange a meeting by Dr. Hynek with Dr. Menzel,
Dr. Liddell, and Dr. Billings,after the meeting was over, was unsuccessful
because Liddell and Billings both had to leave immediately after the meeting.
_INTERROGATION_REPORTS_
Five hundred copies of the "U. S. Air Force Technical Information
Sheet" (Form A and Form B) were delivered to WPAFB on October 20, 1952. This
questionnaire was used in place of the "Tentative Observers Data Sheet" to
record data on all sighting reports dated after March 31, 1952. It has proved
to be more satisfactory than the previous form, especially from the standpoint
of recording data from sighting reports in greater detail.
Additional copies of the "U. S. Air Force Technical Information Sheet
can be supplied to WPAFB as needed.
_FUTURE_WORK_
Coding and evaluation of 1952 sighting reports will continue. A
preliminary analysis of data on all sighting reports dated previous to 1952
will be given to WPAFB as soon as possible after evaluation is completed of
the 1947 and 1948 sighting reports.
===========================================================================
-5-
By December 10, 1952, all sighting reports dated before June 15, 1952,
should be processed and evaluated, ready for IBM analysis. Complete IBM analysis
of all sighting reports will not be started until all reports dated previous to
1953 are processed and evaluated. Because of the nature of the work required,
and the fact that the number of reports for the last three months of 1952 is
not yet known, no estimate can be given as to the time final IBM analysis will
begin. It is hoped, if the frequency of sighting reports follows the present
decreasing trend, that complete IBM analysis for sightings dated through 1952
may be started by February 1, 1953.
VWE:eg
November 20, 1952 i
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ ]
[ ]
December 15, 1952
Mr. Miles E. Goll
Box 9575
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Ohio
Dear Mr. Goll;
This letter report describes progress for the period from
November 11, 1952, to December 10, 1952,
Sighting reports up to and including July 25, 1952, have been
processed. Except for reports dated 1947 and 1948, all sighting reports
up to and including June, 1952, have been evaluated. The sighting
reports for 1947 and 1948 were returned from Harvard University on
November 20. Because the reports and the forms which had been filled in
and placed with the folders were mixed up, these reports will not be
ready for evaluation until about December 15.
Two evaluation conferences of two days each were held during
this report period, on November 12 and 13, and on December 3 and 4.
During the report period, evaluation has been more difficult than for-
merly, because the amount and quality of data in the average report have
increased. Evaluation conferences will be scheduled in the future as
reports are available.
The rotation system for handling sighting reports, whereby no
more than 100 sighting reports are permitted away from WPAFB at any one
time, has functioned with a minimum of delay.
Coding and evaluation of 1952 sighting reports will continue.
The preliminary analysis of data on all sighting reports dated before
1952 will begin as soon as the 1947 and 1948 reports can be straightened
out and evaluated. Results or this analysis will be given to WPAFB at
the earliest possible time. It is hoped that the results will be avail-
able by January 1, 1953. By about January 15, 1953, all sighting reports
dated before August 10, 1952, will probably be processed and evaluated,
ready for IBM analysis.
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, The Ohio State University, gave advice con-
cerning several sighting reports during the report period.
Very truly yours,
/s/ William T. Reid
William T. Reid
Supervisor
WTR:eg
cc: Capt. F. H. McGovern RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY INFORMATION
===========================================================================
[ RESTRICTED ]
[ SECURITY INFORMATION ] UNCLASSIFIED
[ ]
[ ]
January 23, 1953
Mr. Miles E. Goll
Box 9575
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Ohio
Dear Mr. Goll:
This letter report describes progress for the period from
December 11, 1952, to January 10, 1953.
Sighting reports have now been processed up to and including
August 10, 1952. Evaluation of sighting reports has been completed for
sightings up to and including July 15, 1952. Reports for 1947 and 1948
were evaluated; these reports had been at Harvard University and thus
had not been evaluated in chronological order. In our previous letter
to you dated December 15, 1952, it was stated that a preliminary analysis
of data from all sighting reports made before 1952 would begin as soon as
possible after the 1947 and 1948 reports were reprocessed and evaluated.
It had been hoped that results of the preliminary analysis would be avail-
able by January 1, 1953. This has not been possible, because of the ex-
tensive work required in reprocessing the 1947 and 1948 sighting reports
after their return from Harvard University. Reprocessing of these reports
required more time than anticipated, because many of our forms had been
lost. This has delayed our consideration of the 1952 sighting reports.
One two-day evaluation conference was held during this report
period, on December 17 and 18, 1952. As mentioned in the last progress
report, evaluation of later sighting reports has been more difficult than
for earlier ones.
Preliminary analysis by IBM machines of data from sighting
reports dated before 1952 will begin January 20, 1952. Results of this
analysis will be sent to WPAFB as soon as they are available. The
results will be reported informally first to Captain Ruppelt, as be has
requested. Later, they will be included in a routine progress report.
Coding and evaluation of 1952 sighting reports is continuing,
with evaluation conferences scheduled as they are necessary. All sighting
reports dated prior to August 25, 1952, should be processed by February 15,
1953. (The period of August 10 to 25, 1952, was one during which a large
number of sighting reports was received. By this same date, all reports
dated before August 1, 1952, are expected to be evaluated.
Very truly yours.
/s/ William T. Reid
William T. Reid
Supervisor
WTR:eg
cc: Maj. L. G. Whitcher RESTRICTED UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY INFORMATION
===========================================================================
February 23, 1953
Mr. Miles E. Goll
Box 9575
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Ohio
Dear Mr. Goll:
This letter report describes progress for the period from
January 11, 1953, to February 10, 1953.
Sighting reports have now been processed up to and including
October 15, 1952. Evaluation of sighting reports has been completed for
sightings up to and including July 31, 1952.
Preliminary analysis by IBM machines of data from sighting
reports dated before 1952 began on January 26, 1953. This work is con-
tinuing, and results of the analysis will be forwarded informally to
Captain Ruppelt as soon as they are available.
One two-day evaluation conference was held during this report
period, on January 22 and 23, 1953. Beacuse only one WPAFB representative
was available to participate in the conference, less than the normal
amount of work was accomplished. (Usually, 180 to 200 cases can be
evaluated during a two-day evaluation conference. On January 22 and 23,
1953, 145 cases were evaluated.)
Coding and evaluation of 1952 sighting reports is continuing,
with evaluation conferences scheduled as they are necessary. All
sighting reports remaining for the year 1952 should be processed by
March 15, 1953. By that same date, all sighting reports dated prior to
September 1 are expected to be evaluated.
Very truly yours.
/s/ William T. Reid
William T. Reid
Supervisor
WTR:eg
cc: Maj. L. G. Whitcher
===========================================================================
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
