• Introduction
• The Levelland UFO Encounters (1957)
• Project Blue Book Investigation and Official Explanations
• Civilian Investigations and Scientific Reactions
• UFOs, Power Outages, and Electrical Disturbances
• Encounters with Nuclear Weapons Systems
• Scientific Debate and Perspectives
• Conclusion
• References

Note: The re-creation imagery used in this article to represent details of the Levelland incident are visual interpretations based on witness testimony, newspaper accounts, and official Project Blue Book documentation. While every effort was made to remain faithful to the descriptions, certain aspects of the event – such as the exact shape, size, and light effects of the reported object – vary among accounts. These visuals are intended to help illustrate the incident and bring the reports to life, not to serve as exact photographic records. Imagery of government documents shown in this article are authentic and verified, not reproductions or mockups.

Introduction

Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) have not only been reported as strange lights or craft in the sky, but in many cases they are also linked to unexplained electrical disturbances. Some of the most intriguing UFO reports involve engines stalling, headlights dimming, radios cutting out, and even large-scale power grid failures occurring simultaneously with a UFO sighting. Researchers have long noted these electromagnetic interference effects as a compelling aspect of the phenomenon. One of the earliest and most famous instances occurred in 1957 near the small town of Levelland, Texas, where multiple motorists independently reported their vehicles’ engines and lights failing in the presence of a glowing UFO[1]. Since then, numerous similar cases have been documented, fueling debate over whether UFOs can interact with electrical systems or if these incidents are merely coincidences or misidentified natural phenomena. This deep dive examines the Levelland case in detail, reviews the official investigation and skeptical explanations, explores the responses of civilian UFO investigators, and looks at broader patterns of UFO-related electromagnetic events – from localized car failures to regional power blackouts and even alleged interference with nuclear missile systems. The goal is to present a factual, balanced account of the evidence and differing interpretations, drawing on contemporary reports and analyses. By understanding both the events and the ensuing debate, we can appreciate why cases like Levelland became touchstones in the UFO controversy and why they remain of interest to investigators even today.

The Levelland UFO Encounters (1957)

On the night of November 2, 1957, going into the early hours of November 3, an extraordinary series of encounters unfolded on the highways around Levelland, Texas. Between roughly 11:00 PM and 1:30 AM, at least eight to ten separate motorists and law enforcement officers around Levelland reported coming upon a bizarre luminous object at close range – and each time, their vehicle’s engine sputtered or died, and the lights went out[2][3]. The first report came from Pedro Saucedo, a farm worker driving with a friend on Route 116 about four miles west of Levelland. Around 11:00 PM, Saucedo saw a sudden flash of light in a nearby field and then a large, blazing object rose up and rushed toward his truck. According to Saucedo’s signed statement, “it put my truck motor out and lights. Then I stopped, got out, and took a look, but it was so rapid and [gave off]some heat that I had to hit the ground… it looked like a torpedo, about 200 feet long”. He reported that as the fiery object zoomed away into the night, the truck’s headlights came back on by themselves and he was able to restart the engine. Deeply shaken, Saucedo drove to the nearest town (Whiteface) to telephone the police in Levelland.

About an hour later, around midnight, another motorist (Jim Wheeler) was driving east of Levelland when he encountered a brilliant egg-shaped object, roughly 200 feet long, sitting on the road and blocking his path[4].

As Wheeler approached, his car engine died and his headlights went out, plunging him into darkness. He got out on foot, at which point the glowing object rose vertically and sped away, its lights extinguishing as it departed. The moment the UFO vanished, Wheeler’s car lights and engine came back to life on their own, just as in the Saucedo incident[4][5].

In the minutes that followed, more reports streamed in. At about 11:50 PM, a married couple driving northeast of Levelland witnessed a bright streak or flash of light cross the sky, and simultaneously their vehicle’s headlights and radio died for a few seconds[6]. Around that same time (~11:55 PM), Jose Alvarez, driving 11 miles north of town, came upon a “strange object” landed on the road; as he neared it, his car’s engine faltered and stopped until the object departed[7]. Shortly after midnight, at 12:05 AM, Newell Wright, a 19-year-old college student from Texas Tech, was driving 10 miles east of Levelland when his car’s electrical system went haywire – the ammeter on the dashboard jumped to discharge, the engine began sputtering as if starved of fuel, and the headlights dimmed and then died. Stepping out to inspect under the hood, Wright then noticed a 100-foot-long glowing object sitting on the pavement ahead. The mysterious craft took off moments later, and immediately his car’s lights brightened and the engine readily started again[8][9].

By this point, the police department in Levelland was receiving call after call from frightened drivers. Officer A. J. Fowler was on duty and noted that “everybody who called was very excited” by what they had seen[10]. At 12:15 AM, Frank Williams (a farmer in the area) reported nearly the same experience – a brightly lit object on the road ahead of him, and as his car approached, its lights went out and its motor stopped[9]. When the UFO ascended straight up with a “whooshing” or thunderous sound, the car lights and engine recovered. Then at 12:45 AM, truck driver Ronald Martin encountered a glowing orange oval object that actually appeared to be sitting on the highway. His truck’s headlights failed and engine quit on the spot. The object changed color to a bluish-green hue and took off vertically, after which Martin’s lights came back on and he was able to restart the truck[3][11]. Yet another report came at 1:15 AM from James Long, who described an elliptical UFO on the road that caused his truck to stall; the object emitted a burst like a thunderclap as it departed into the sky[11].

Even local law enforcement became eyewitnesses. Hockley County Sheriff Weir Clem was out investigating these unusual reports when, at around 1:30 AM, he himself observed a glowing red oval light zooming across the sky in the distance[12].

A short while later (approximately 1:45 AM), Fire Chief Ray Jones was driving north of Levelland when he saw a brilliant streak of light overhead; simultaneously his vehicle’s headlights dimmed and his engine almost died before the object passed and normal function resumed[13]. In total, during roughly a two-hour period, police logged 15 separate UFO-related calls from the public[10]. Investigators later determined that at least eight or nine distinct close-range sightings had occurred around Levelland that night, in an approximate 20-mile radius of the town[14][15]. Strikingly, the descriptions from independent witnesses were very consistent: a brightly illuminated, elliptical or “egg-shaped” craft sometimes likened to a rocket or torpedo, often reported on or near the ground, that would take off rapidly; and in each case where a vehicle was nearby, the engine and lights were suddenly disabled while the UFO was present, only to return to normal once the object flew away[16][3].

Levelland was a quiet rural community (population around 10,000) focused on oil and cotton farming[17]. It was an unlikely place for such a dramatic series of incidents. The events of that night received national attention – newspapers across the country ran headlines like “Mystery Object Stops Cars in Texas” – and they occurred against an interesting backdrop: just a few hours earlier on November 3, 1957, the Soviet Union had launched Sputnik II, the second-ever artificial satellite (carrying a dog into orbit). At the time of the Levelland sightings, however, the American public was not yet aware of the satellite launch (news of it emerged the next day). Some later mused that the space age context might have primed people to see unusual things, but the consensus is that the timing was a coincidence[18]. Indeed, what happened in Levelland that stormy night was unprecedented: never before had so many independent witnesses reported a UFO seemingly interacting with automobiles in such a tangible way. The cluster of reports, all describing a similar phenomenon in a short span of time, suggested that something extraordinary had occurred.

Not surprisingly, the Levelland case immediately drew the attention of the U.S. Air Force’s UFO investigation program, Project Blue Book, as well as civilian UFO research groups. Was this “mass car-stalling” incident evidence of an unknown atmospheric phenomenon, a hoax, an overreaction to lightning – or perhaps, as some UFO proponents believed, a close encounter with a craft of extraterrestrial origin generating powerful electromagnetic effects? The next sections explore how the Air Force officially handled the case and how others responded to the puzzle of Levelland.

Project Blue Book Investigation and Official Explanations

 Project Blue Book: Levelland UFO case, November 2-3, 1957 [81 Pages, 22.5MB]

Project Blue Book was the Air Force’s ongoing program to investigate UFO reports in the 1950s and 1960s. In response to the Levelland sightings, Blue Book dispatched an officer (Staff Sgt. Norman Barth) to the area within a few days. He spent only seven hours in Levelland interviewing witnesses before departing[19]. Critics later argued this was a very cursory inquiry given the number of reports; however, Blue Book’s conclusion was that nothing of defense significance had occurred. Based on the limited investigation, the Air Force publicly attributed the Levelland sightings to a form of weather-related electrical phenomenon. In an official press release (Air Force Press Release No. 1108-57) summarizing prominent UFO reports from that period, the Air Force stated that the “phenomenon observed at Levelland” was either “ball lightning or St. Elmo’s fire,” caused by stormy conditions in the area[20]. Ball lightning and St. Elmo’s fire are both rare atmospheric electrical effects: ball lightning refers to floating luminous spheres sometimes seen during thunderstorms, while St. Elmo’s fire is a glowing discharge that can appear on pointed objects in electrically charged air. By offering this explanation, officials were essentially saying that unusual weather was responsible for the glowing object and the electrical interference with vehicles.

To bolster this conclusion, Project Blue Book noted that thunderstorms had indeed been reported in west Texas that night. It had rained earlier in the evening, and there was lightning in the region (November 1957 turned out to be an unusually wet month for that area)[21][22]. Notably, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Blue Book’s scientific consultant at the time, initially considered the weather hypothesis plausible: he later recalled that when he first heard a sketchy account of Levelland, he wondered if a bolide (bright meteor) or ball lightning could have startled the driver into stalling his own engine by mistake[23][24]. In fact, early on, a few scientists offered off-the-cuff explanations to the press. Famed meteor expert Dr. Lincoln LaPaz suggested a fireball meteor might have been responsible for the reports, before more details came out[25]. And Dr. Donald Menzel (who would later write a debunking book on UFOs) was quoted in news dispatches proposing that perhaps the drivers were “frightened by lightning” or had inadvertently flooded their engines due to “nervous foot” syndrome while panicking at a flash of light[24]. However, as additional witness testimony emerged, these meteor and “nervous driver” ideas quickly lost credibility[26].

Blue Book’s final explanation settled on the ball lightning/St. Elmo’s fire scenario – albeit with some ambiguity. Interestingly, the official statement phrased it as “ball lightning or St. Elmo’s fire” (without clearly choosing one), which later drew criticism[27]. NICAP and others pointed out that ball lightning and St. Elmo’s fire, while both electrical phenomena, are quite different in character. Ball lightning usually appears as a free-floating glowing sphere (typically only a few inches to a few feet in diameter) that lasts only seconds, whereas St. Elmo’s fire is a plasma glow that adheres to sharp objects (like lightning rod tips, ship masts or airplane wings) and is usually static or slow-moving. By conflating the two, the Air Force explanation came off as scientifically imprecise[20][27] – as if they were suggesting either a rare floating plasma ball or a brush discharge on the cars caused the incidents. This blending of possibilities invited skepticism that the cause was truly understood.

Project Blue Book also downplayed the scope of the Levelland reports. According to later summaries by Blue Book personnel, the investigation concluded that only three individuals had actually seen a strange glowing object at close range on the ground, and that those were the only cases where vehicles stalled[28]. The rest of the reports, they suggested, were likely caused by ordinary lightning or “brainstorming” once the news got out – in other words, many people may have seen distant flashes of lightning or unrelated lights and, in the excitement, interpreted them as the same UFO, or reported minor car troubles as related. Blue Book’s investigator found no physical trace of any landed object, and given the brief time spent, did not uncover any evidence beyond the eyewitness testimony. Internally, the case was categorized as “explained” (or more strictly, as “probable” ball lightning) and effectively closed.

It’s worth noting that ball lightning itself was and remains a poorly understood phenomenon. In 1957 especially, it was a somewhat enigmatic choice – a convenient catch-all for any luminous mystery in a thunderstorm. The Levelland case did have some environmental conditions that might support the ball lightning theory: the area had experienced electrical storms that night, and witnesses did report rain and lightning earlier in the evening[21][29]. Indeed, one of the witnesses (Saucedo) initially thought the flash was just lightning until the “ball of fire” came toward his truck. A prominent meteorite researcher, Dr. Harvey Nininger, publicly guessed that Saucedo “had observed an example of that rare phenomenon, ball lightning,” and this was touted as “the best guess of all” by those skeptical of a UFO interpretation[30][31]. So from Blue Book’s perspective, it was not outrageous to consider ball lightning as a candidate.

However, the Air Force’s handling of Levelland did not quell the controversy – in fact, it fueled it. Many observers felt the “ball lightning” explanation was strained and inadequate, given the reported behavior of the object. Ball lightning is typically only a few inches or feet across (certainly not 200 feet long as multiple witnesses estimated the Levelland object to be) and typically lasts only a few seconds, rarely traveling long distances. Yet in Levelland, the craft was seen by different witnesses over a span of hours and distances, and appeared to intentionally approach vehicles or sit on the road, then take off at high speed – not characteristics of random globes of lightning. Moreover, ball lightning had never been credibly documented to stall car engines or interact with electronics in the manner described. The Air Force’s own explanation also acknowledged that night’s sightings could be interpreted as something as static and harmless as St. Elmo’s fire – a faint glow on wet power lines or antennas – which did not match the dramatic close encounters described by the witnesses (e.g. a fiery object thundering overhead and shaking a truck with its wake)[32][33].

In sum, Project Blue Book officially labeled the Levelland case as “solved” – chalking it up to an unusual weather phenomenon – and moved on. This quick dismissal, issued via press release within less than two weeks of the incident, served a purpose: it reassured the public that there was nothing unknown or “alien” invading Texas. In fact, around the same time, the Air Force put out another statement boasting that after ten years of UFO investigations, “the number of [cases]classified as unknowns has been reduced to less than 2%”[34]. The Levelland explanation was clearly meant to reinforce that narrative. As the NICAP organization would later point out, the Air Force’s flurry of answers in late 1957 bore “all the earmarks of public relations utterances designed to reassure the public that (1) the Air Force is conducting a thorough scientific investigation, and (2) nothing truly unexplainable is being seen.”[35] In truth, Blue Book’s rapid investigation and broad-brush explanation left many questions unanswered – questions that civilian investigators and some scientists were eager to tackle themselves.

Civilian Investigations and Scientific Reactions

The Levelland case quickly became a cause célèbre for civilian UFO investigators, who were highly skeptical of the Air Force’s conclusion. The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), a private UFO research group led by Major Donald Keyhoe, collected witness testimony and did its own analysis. NICAP’s view was that Levelland represented a genuine unknown – possibly a spacecraft of extraterrestrial origin – and that the Air Force had brushed off a landmark case with a superficial explanation. In NICAP’s comprehensive 1964 report The UFO Evidence, the Levelland incidents were highlighted among the strongest cases involving electromagnetic effects. NICAP adviser Walter N. Webb compiled a detailed chronology and map of the sightings, emphasizing that at least 10 separate witnesses (not just three) had reported essentially the same phenomenon: a brightly lit, oval-shaped UFO close to the ground that “caused cars to stall” and lights to go out[36][37]. NICAP noted that these independent reports came from credible individuals – including a Texas Tech college student, a farmer, and local law enforcement officials – who had no apparent incentive to fabricate a wild story. The odds of so many vehicle failures coinciding with an unexplained aerial object, NICAP argued, were astronomically low unless there was a real causal connection.

Importantly, NICAP and other critics pointed out errors and omissions in the official account. For example, the Air Force stated it was able to locate “only three persons who saw the ‘big light’” in Levelland[36], whereas NICAP documented at least eight or nine direct witnesses of the object (and many more who saw flashes in the sky). The Air Force also ignored reports like those of Sheriff Clem and Fire Chief Jones, perhaps because those didn’t involve stalled engines – but NICAP considered those corroborating sightings of a strange object in the area. Additionally, NICAP challenged the plausibility of ball lightning as an explanation. Their report dryly noted that “ball lightning” and “St. Elmo’s fire” are two totally different phenomena (something even the Air Force press release had seemingly confused)[20][38]. NICAP members – and even some outside scientists – argued that it would be an incredible coincidence for multiple instances of ball lightning to occur in one small area, one after the other, each coincident with a car’s arrival, and each disappearing at the moment the driver got out or the object was illuminated by headlights. Ball lightning is extremely rare; to have perhaps a dozen occurrences (the number of times vehicles were affected that night if one counted all reports) in a single locale stretches credulity.

Furthermore, many witnesses described the object in structured terms – “like a rocket,” “torpedo-shaped,” or a large egg with blinking lights, etc. – which does not sound like amorphous ball lightning or diffuse St. Elmo’s fire at all[29]. For instance, Frank Williams reported an elliptical craft that pulsated from a dim to a bright phase, and that his engine died each time it glowed brightest[39]. Such details suggested an artificial device rather than a weather effect.

One of the key scientific figures to eventually side with NICAP’s interpretation was Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the very astronomer who had been serving as the Air Force’s scientific consultant. At the time of Levelland in 1957, Dr. Hynek publicly went along with the official line (he cautiously noted that ball lightning was a “possible” explanation). But Hynek privately harbored doubts, and over the ensuing years, as he studied more cases, he underwent a well-documented change of opinion from skeptic to open-minded investigator. By the mid-1960s, Hynek was openly criticizing the Air Force for not properly investigating high-quality UFO reports. The Levelland case became one he frequently revisited as an example of a missed opportunity for science. In an analysis written later, Hynek highlighted the absurd improbability of the “coincidence” explanation. He wrote: “We have all seen cars stalled by the side of the road… It would be highly improbable that a car would become completely immobilized and then a few moments later ‘heal itself.’ Yet it can happen… But to combine this low-probability event with the simultaneous appearance of a strange light coming down from the sky and hovering over the car, the car remaining disabled only so long as the light was present, is dubious at best.” In other words, while any single car failure could be a fluke, the odds of multiple vehicles independently failing at the precise moments a UFO was nearby – and then all working again after the UFO left – defy any reasonable probability if there is no cause-and-effect relationship. Hynek admonished his fellow scientists that it was intellectually lazy to simply dismiss such reports as “psychological” without investigation. “It is much easier to dismiss the whole matter as ‘psychological’ (whatever that means in this context) and return to commonplace matters,” he wrote. “However, that would not be acting true to the high ideals of science, which involve being curious about all things in man’s environment, investigating and weighing them, and calmly considering the evidence.” His point was that the strange but consistent testimony from Levelland deserved serious, open-minded scrutiny – not summary rejection or ridicule.

Hynek’s evolving view was shared by other scientists who took an interest in UFO reports, notably Dr. James E. McDonald, a senior physicist at the University of Arizona. Dr. McDonald personally investigated dozens of UFO cases in the 1960s and became one of the most outspoken scientific voices calling for a deeper look at the phenomenon. In testimony before Congress in 1968, McDonald cited Levelland as “one famous case” that in his opinion demonstrated a physical effect beyond the ordinary[40]. Speaking to a House Committee, he summarized the incident: “Ten vehicles were stopped within a short area, all independently in a 2-hour period, near Levelland, Texas. There was no lightning or thunderstorm, and only a trace of rain.”[41] He used this example to argue that UFO reports sometimes include concurrent physical effects on the environment (in this case, on car ignitions) that cannot be casually dismissed. McDonald also pointed out that UFOs had been reported to hover near power lines, power plants, and other electrical infrastructure in a number of cases, and he felt the correlation was intriguing enough to merit investigation[42].

While NICAP and proponents like Hynek and McDonald leaned toward the idea that an unknown electromagnetic mechanism was at work in cases like Levelland, the skeptic camp – exemplified by Donald H. Menzel – insisted that no exotic explanation was needed. In his 1963 book The World of Flying Saucers, Menzel devoted a section to Levelland (and similar “EM-effect” cases) with the telling title “Stormy Weather in Texas.” Menzel argued that the sightings had been grossly exaggerated in the retelling and that a combination of ball lightning and observer excitement could account for everything. He acknowledged that conditions were ideal that night for an electrical phenomenon – noting that early November 1957 brought freak weather to west Texas, with record rainfall and thunderstorms in the area[21][22]. According to Menzel, Pedro Saucedo’s initial encounter was likely triggered by an “unusually bright meteor” or a lightning ball that frightened him, and in his panic he might have stalled his own truck (for instance, by jamming the clutch or flooding the engine)[23][43]. As evidence, Menzel pointed out that Saucedo’s story did change slightly over time – initial reports mentioned a bright light and heat and wind, but later on Saucedo described the object in more detail (adding that it was torpedo-shaped with blinking lights)[29][44]. To Menzel, this suggested a degree of embellishment as the tale grew. More importantly, Menzel wrote that after Saucedo’s dramatic report hit the news, “the sheriff was soon receiving reports from other persons” and that “most of the other reports had been stimulated chiefly by the general excitement.”[45][46] In his analysis, only three people (likely Saucedo, Wheeler, and Wright) actually saw an object close to the ground; the rest just saw flashes of light in the sky or distant glows, which could have been lightning or electrical arcing. “An amazingly large number of citizens seem to have been out late that stormy Saturday night, but apparently none of them noticed any ordinary lightning – only phantom somethings,” Menzel quipped with irony[29]. He believed the excitement of a “UFO in the news” led people to interpret normal storm lights as flying saucers, a kind of mild mass hysteria effect.

In the end, Menzel fully endorsed the official finding. He noted that the Air Force’s explanation was unfortunately worded (omitting the word “either” between ball lightning and St. Elmo’s fire), but he did not see that as reason to reject it[27]. To the contrary, he asserted that the Levelland incidents were caused by ball lightning. He chastised UFO “supporters” for seizing on the ambiguity to claim neither phenomenon was present, calling that “some process of peculiar logic.”[38] In Menzel’s view, the simplest answer was best: rare weather phenomenon + human exaggeration = UFO reports. He went so far as to say that “only the saucer proponents could have converted so trivial a series of events – a few stalled automobiles, [and]balls of lightning – into a national mystery.”[47] From the skeptical standpoint, Levelland was only famous because it got wide press coverage, not because it presented any unsolvable mystery.

The divide between these interpretations highlights the polarized mindset that had formed around UFOs by the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Air Force and debunkers like Menzel believed (or at least professed) that no UFO case, Levelland included, was truly unexplainable – there was always a prosaic answer if one looked hard enough (or in some cases, not very hard at all). On the other side, organizations like NICAP and researchers like Hynek and McDonald contended that some UFO reports involved consistent, physical phenomena that could not be explained away, and that Levelland was a prime example of an “Unknown” worthy of scientific attention. Hynek later categorized the Levelland case as a “Close Encounter II” (CE-II) in his UFO classification system – meaning a close encounter with a UFO that leaves physical effects (in this case, electromagnetic disturbances). And Dr. McDonald, in a 1969 paper, pointed out that “if it were true that we dealt only with reports of hazy, glowing masses comparable to, say, ball lightning…[the skeptical]explanation would hold some weight. Not so – we are dealing with reports of what appear to be machine-like objects, sometimes at close range.”[48][49] To McDonald, the vehicle interference cases were part of a pattern indicating something beyond mere weather was at work.

In retrospect, the Levelland incident remains noteworthy. Even the United States government’s own later analysis acknowledged the peculiarity – a 1969 UFO research bibliography prepared for the Air Force cited “7 UFO-related power failures” and multiple cases of electromagnetic effects on record[50]. Levelland would undoubtedly count among those. While opinions differ, the case significantly influenced subsequent UFO studies. It spurred researchers to compile catalogs of similar electrical interference cases worldwide, looking for common factors. And it put pressure on the Air Force, which was facing growing criticism in the late 1950s for issuing facile explanations. In fact, in the wake of Levelland and a wave of other reports in 1957, NICAP’s lobbying led to congressional inquiries about whether the Air Force was concealing information. By 1958, at least one U.S. Congressman (Rep. J. Edward Roush) was openly questioning the Air Force’s handling of UFO reports[51][52]. Some of this discontent eventually contributed to the formation of the 1966-68 University of Colorado UFO Project (the Condon Committee), which re-examined a few electromagnetic cases (though notably, they did not reinvestigate Levelland deeply, focusing mostly on newer cases). The Condon Report in 1969 ultimately concluded UFOs were not a serious threat or fruitful field – a conclusion that Hynek, NICAP, and McDonald strongly rejected, partly on the grounds that cases like Levelland had been glossed over rather than explained.

UFOs, Power Outages, and Electrical Disturbances

The Levelland case raised the possibility that UFOs might influence electrical systems in cars. This led some researchers to ask: could UFOs also affect larger electrical grids or other infrastructure? Intriguingly, scattered reports over the years have linked UFO sightings with power blackouts and equipment failures. During his 1968 congressional testimony, Dr. James McDonald noted that “UFOs have often been seen hovering near power facilities” and that there were “a small number – but still a little too many to seem pure chance – of system outages coincident with UFO sightings.”[42] He gave a couple of examples by name: Tamaroa, Illinois and Shelbyville, Kentucky. In Tamaroa, IL, on November 14, 1957 (just two weeks after Levelland), witnesses observed a peculiar hovering object and, at the same time, the electric power in a four-mile area around Tamaroa failed for about 10 minutes[53]. In Shelbyville, KY, in early 1967, a UFO was reported in the vicinity when a local power disturbance occurred, though documentation on that case was less extensive. These were relatively localized incidents, but they suggested a pattern where small-scale power failures sometimes accompanied close UFO encounters.

A much more famous event often brought into this discussion is the great Northeast blackout of November 9, 1965, which plunged over 30 million people into darkness across New York and New England. That massive outage was officially blamed on a cascading electrical grid failure starting at a power plant in Ontario, Canada. However, almost immediately, rumors and reports surfaced connecting the blackout to UFO sightings. On the evening of the blackout, numerous New Yorkers (and others across the region) reported strange lights in the sky. Dr. J. Allen Hynek personally investigated a report from a Manhattan witness who claimed to see a bright object over the city just as the lights went out[54]. Dr. McDonald interviewed a woman on Long Island (Seacliff, NY) who saw a disk-shaped object hovering and then racing off moments after the power failed[55]. There were even five witnesses near Syracuse, NY who independently described a glowing object ascending right around the time the grid collapsed, initially thinking it might be a fire or explosion on the ground coinciding with the outage[56]. While these accounts were anecdotal, they were numerous. McDonald found that the Federal Power Commission (FPC) – the agency investigating the blackout – had quietly collected “many dozens” of UFO sighting reports from that night, but did not take them seriously[57]. Indeed, the FPC’s official report on the blackout made no mention of UFOs and identified the cause as a mis-set relay at a power station (though it admitted a precise triggering “current surge” was never conclusively traced)[58].

To be clear, neither McDonald nor other scientists claimed to have proof that UFOs caused these power failures. McDonald was careful in his wording, calling it a “puzzling and slightly disturbing coincidence” and saying “I’m not going on record as saying these are clear-cut cause and effect… but it ought to be looked at.”[59] At the hearing, Congressman Ryan asked if any federal agency had formally investigated the UFO-blackout link; McDonald replied, “None at all.”[51] He then stated that while he wouldn’t use the word “imperative,” it would be “extremely desirable” for bodies like the FPC or FCC to examine any possible relations between UFO sightings and power system disturbances[60]. This exchange itself underscores how, by the late 1960s, the idea of UFOs affecting electrical grids had gained enough traction to be discussed in the halls of Congress.

NICAP, for its part, compiled a catalog of such cases under the heading “UFOs and Power Outages.” An analysis by NICAP researcher Paul C. Smith plotted the yearly frequency of UFO reports vs. major power failures from 1954 to 1969. Interestingly, the two curves showed a rough correlation – peaks in UFO sighting waves tended to coincide with peaks in reported power grid disturbances[61]. There were some outlier years (1956 and 1967 were noted as exceptions where the patterns diverged somewhat)[61], but overall the data suggested it was not purely random. This doesn’t prove causation, of course. Many power failures have prosaic causes (technical malfunctions, weather damage, etc.), and UFO waves could coincide with other factors. But the correlation was tantalizing enough for NICAP to comment on it.

Beyond blackouts, some UFO encounters have been linked to other electrical effects on a smaller scale. For example, McDonald mentioned cases of single houses losing power when a UFO was nearby[62]. In one case, people even reported that the fillings in their teeth ached as a UFO hovered overhead, possibly due to induced currents or vibrations[40] – an odd phenomenon, but one that suggests a strong electromagnetic field might have been present. A commonly proposed hypothesis for car-stalling cases (like Levelland) is that a UFO could be emitting a high-intensity magnetic field or electromagnetic pulse. If the UFO produced a powerful static (DC) magnetic field, it might “saturate” the iron cores of a car’s ignition coil or generator, disrupting the electrical pulses needed for the spark plugs[63]. Essentially, the car’s engine ignition system would cease to function until the field subsided – which is consistent with engines mysteriously dying and then working again as if nothing happened. This idea was discussed by McDonald and others: it’s speculative, but it’s one way to explain how multiple different cars (with different batteries, wiring, etc.) all failed in the same manner when a UFO was present and then recovered immediately afterward.

When it comes to large power stations and grids, the mechanism is less clear. Skeptics argue that the Northeast blackout, for instance, was fully explained by electrical engineering analyses – a cascade of overloads tripping breakers due to a single relay failure. UFO proponents counter that it’s an awfully coincidental fluke that so many people reported UFOs in the area at that exact time, and they point to lingering oddities (such as the “unidentified power surge” or, as one rumor held, unexplained false alarms on nuclear attack sensors during the 1965 blackout)[58][64]. The Mt. Weather incident, mentioned in NICAP files, is an example: the underground Pentagon bunker reportedly went on high alert during the 1965 blackout because automated systems indicated something akin to a nuclear blast had occurred – which turned out to be a false alarm likely triggered by the grid disturbance itself[64][65]. In hindsight, nothing conclusively ties UFOs to causing that event. But the idea that UFOs could knock out a major city’s lights captured the public imagination in the 1960s, fueled by articles in popular magazines and books that speculated about “flying saucers and the blackout.”

Looking at multiple cases collectively: Levelland (car engines), Tamaroa (local outage), New York (regional blackout), and others – some UFO researchers argue there is a pattern of electromagnetic effects that is hard to ascribe to coincidence. In fact, a government bibliography in 1969 quietly catalogued a number of such instances, acknowledging at least “7 UFO-related power failures” had been reported over the years[50]. These included not only U.S. incidents but some abroad (for example, a well-known case in Cachoeira, Brazil on Nov. 15, 1957, the night after Tamaroa, where a luminous object was followed by a citywide blackout). It is important to note, however, that correlation is not causation. To date, no scientific study has obtained instrumented measurements of a UFO-induced electromagnetic disturbance – unsurprisingly, since these events are unpredictable and fleeting. Thus, the evidence remains anecdotal and circumstantial. But the consistency of witness descriptions (engines stopping, lights dimming, radios buzzing with static) across many independent cases adds weight to the phenomenon’s reality in the eyes of many investigators.

Encounters with Nuclear Weapons Systems

If UFOs indeed have the capability to interfere with electrical and electronic systems, one of the most unsettling implications is what might happen if such an object came near critical military installations. In this regard, there are a number of accounts – mainly from former military personnel – of UFOs tampering with nuclear weapons systems during the Cold War. These reports lie outside the civilian incidents like Levelland, but they form an important “electromagnetic interference” category of their own. Perhaps the most famous of these is the Malmstrom AFB incident of March 1967.

Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana was (and remains) a Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) site. In 1967, Air Force officers including Captain Robert Salas were in charge of a flight of underground nuclear-tipped missiles there. According to Salas and others, in the early morning of March 16, 1967, guards on the surface reported seeing a bright, glowing red-orange UFO hovering near the front gate of the missile facility[66][67]. The object was described as an oval or disc and pulsating. As this occurred, multiple alarm systems went off. In rapid succession, all ten of the missiles in one flight of silos suddenly went into a “no-go” (offline) condition – essentially, they were disabled while the UFO was present overhead[68][69]. Air Force technical crews scrambled to diagnose the problem and found that the guidance and control systems had mysteriously malfunctioned. The missiles could not be launched until the systems were reset, which took hours; reports indicate those ICBMs remained down for nearly a day[70]. As Salas later put it, “We had control of 10 nuclear missiles… and they were all shut down.”

Initially, the Air Force kept this incident highly classified and attributed the missile shutdowns to an equipment fault. However, no clear technical cause was ever found for the simultaneous failure of ten independent missile systems – an extremely unlikely event under normal conditions. Over the years, as the story slowly came out (through Salas and other officers who were there, once they were no longer bound by secrecy), the Malmstrom case has been cited as powerful evidence that whatever UFOs are, they had an interest in and the capability to disrupt our most powerful weapons systems. In fact, in recent years (2021–2023), former officers have publicly testified about this event, and it was even brought up in a Congressional hearing on UFOs. When asked in a 2022 hearing about the Malmstrom 1967 incident, Pentagon officials admitted they were aware of the claim but had not yet officially looked into it – prompting a Congressman to request they investigate and report back[71].

How does this relate to electromagnetic interference? The Malmstrom UFO was not reported to stop car engines or cause city blackouts; instead, it seemed to specifically target the electronics of nuclear missiles. This suggests a very focused interaction, perhaps via directed electromagnetic energy. Some speculate that a strong radio-frequency jamming signal or an electromagnetic pulse could have been used to mess with the missiles’ guidance systems. Others even wonder if the object might have been capable of a form of remote hacking or induced power surge. While those details are beyond verification, the outcome was clear: the missiles were rendered inert during the encounter. It’s worth noting that Malmstrom was not an isolated case: similar stories have come from Air Force bases such as Minot (North Dakota) in 1968 and an incident at Vandenberg AFB (California) where a test missile in flight was allegedly approached and “affected” by a UFO (as recounted by former launch officers and documented by researcher Robert Hastings). Furthermore, on the other side of the world, Soviet-era military personnel have claimed that UFOs hovered over missile bases in the USSR and even, in one frightening episode, apparently initiated launch sequences (which then stopped as the UFO flew off).

While these dramatic nuclear-related cases might sound like science fiction, they have been taken increasingly seriously as veterans have come forward. In 2021, a group of retired Air Force officers held a press conference and briefed U.S. government officials about the pattern of UFO incursions at nuclear sites. Researcher Robert Hastings documented over 100 such incidents in his book UFOs and Nukes. If the witnesses are to be believed, UFOs have demonstrated interference with a range of military electronics: from temporarily shutting down missile guidance systems to jamming radar equipment and disabling communications. This goes beyond the car-stalling cases in scope, but it’s arguably the same core phenomenon – an unexplained technology able to manipulate electrical circuits from a distance.

From a skeptical perspective, these nuclear UFO accounts are even harder to verify than something like Levelland. They rely on testimony and declassified memos, since much of the data is military secret (and no “public” witnesses are around, unlike a UFO on a highway). The Air Force officially denies that UFOs ever compromised national security or nuclear readiness. But notably, since the Malmstrom story has come out, no official refutation with detailed evidence has been made. It remains a contested piece of the UFO puzzle. If true, it implies that the intelligence behind UFOs (whatever it may be) has an interest in nuclear weapons and the ability to neutralize them at will. Some have theorized this is a form of “message” or demonstration of power – though such interpretations veer into speculation. At the very least, cases like Malmstrom underscore why scientists like McDonald and Hynek argued that UFO reports with apparent physical effects deserved urgent attention: these were not just lights in the sky; they were incidents potentially impacting critical systems and pointing to capabilities far beyond known human technology.

Scientific Debate and Perspectives

The recurring thread through all these cases – Levelland, the blackout reports, the missile incidents – is the question of what could cause these electromagnetic effects? From a scientific standpoint, several hypotheses have been proposed:

• Natural Phenomena Hypothesis: This is the skeptic’s default. Each event might be explained by a different natural cause. In Levelland, ball lightning (an atmospheric electrical plasma) could have been near those cars. In the blackouts, electrical grid failures and human error were the culprit, with UFO sightings just coincidental or falsely remembered after the fact. In other car-stop cases, perhaps localized static discharges, lightning strikes, or even geomagnetic disturbances might play a role. However, as data accumulated, this hypothesis often struggled. For instance, no known natural phenomenon can selectively stall multiple cars over a broad area without leaving other evidence. Lightning can damage power lines but doesn’t typically hover as a ball and then vanish on cue. Still, scientists like Menzel held that misinterpreted natural phenomena plus psychological factors explain virtually all such reports[72][73]. They also point out that human perception is fallible; in the excitement of seeing a strange light, a person might mistakenly attribute their stalled engine to the light when in fact the car had an unrelated malfunction.
• Psychological/Hoax Hypothesis: Could all these witnesses be wrong or lying? Skeptics have sometimes suggested that mass hysteria or contagion plays a role – one sensational report triggers others. In Levelland, after Saucedo’s dramatic call, other people might have gotten “UFO fever” and reinterpreted mundane events (like a stalled engine due to damp ignition wires, or seeing an airplane or meteor) as the UFO. There is also the chance of hoaxes: for example, one of the Levelland reports (from a raincoat salesman named Reinhold Schmidt in Kearney, Nebraska) was later deemed a probable hoax, involving claims of meeting UFO occupants[74][75]. Blue Book labeled Schmidt’s Kearney story and also the separate James Stokes tale (Stokes claimed a UFO encounter at White Sands with face burns from radiation) as hoaxes[74]. Fraudulent reports do occur in the UFO field. But to assume all witnesses in a case like Levelland were hallucinating or lying is a stretch. The witnesses in Levelland included sober-minded individuals like police officers and a farmer on his tractor – not typical hoaxers. Psychologists who have studied UFO witnesses generally find that outright hoaxes are relatively rare and that the majority of witnesses seem sincere and even reluctant. Dr. McDonald noted that after personally interviewing over 200 UFO witnesses, he found virtually none that fit the stereotype of hysterical or delusional storytellers[76][77]. In Levelland’s case, the consistency of independent reports argues against a simple mass hallucination.
• Man-Made Technology Hypothesis: One possibility occasionally considered, especially during the Cold War, was that perhaps these events were caused by secret human technology – e.g., a U.S. or Soviet experimental craft testing an electromagnetic weapon or jammer. Could Levelland have been some clandestine test of an EMP device? It seems highly unlikely – why do it by randomly terrorizing civilian motorists? The locations and timing don’t match known test activities, and no conventional aerospace vehicle of the 1950s (or even today) could perform the maneuvers described (silent hovering, sudden bursts of speed, etc.) while also disabling engines without any visible beam or explosion. By the time of the 1965 blackout, speculation briefly arose about Soviet sabotage, but that was quickly ruled out when a simple equipment fault was found. The Condon Committee considered and rejected the idea that UFOs could be secret military devices, noting that by the late 1960s, it was implausible that any country had vehicles with such performance and kept them totally secret and out of operational use for decades[78][79].
• Poorly Understood Physics Hypothesis: Some scientists have wondered if UFOs might be manifestations of a poorly understood natural physical phenomenon – not merely ball lightning, but something perhaps akin to plasma energy spheres or atmospheric vortices that can generate electromagnetic fields. For instance, in the 1970s, a theory was floated about “plasmoids” – naturally occurring charged plasma balls (possibly related to ball lightning) that might occasionally exhibit unusual stability or even guidance. If such plasmoids existed, could they affect electrical systems? Possibly – a highly charged plasma could induce currents or electromagnetic pulses. However, this hypothesis struggles to explain the seemingly intelligent behavior of many UFOs (e.g., pacing vehicles, reacting to witnesses). It also doesn’t fit well with structured craft reports (metallic-looking objects, etc.), unless one speculates that the plasma forms around a solid object. In the end, no consensus “natural plasma” theory has gained traction in scientific circles. Ball lightning remains the closest known analog, but as we saw, it doesn’t adequately account for cases like Levelland in the eyes of many analysts. Nonetheless, the idea of an unknown natural phenomenon is not completely off the table – science has occasionally discovered new atmospheric lights (e.g., sprites and jets – high-altitude lightning – were unknown until recent decades). So skeptics might say: perhaps one day we’ll find a new geophysical phenomenon that scares animals, stops cars, and makes people see flying objects. At the moment, however, that’s speculative.
• Extraterrestrial (Artificial) Hypothesis: This is the hypothesis favored (with cautious language) by Hynek, McDonald, NICAP, and other “believers” by the late 1960s. They posit that some UFOs are indeed machines under intelligent control, quite likely of extraterrestrial origin, and that these craft possess advanced energy fields or propulsion systems that have electromagnetic side-effects on our technology. For example, a strong propulsion system based on magnetic or electro-gravitic principles might create interference as a by-product. Alternatively, the UFOs might deliberately be using a kind of directed energy to disable engines – perhaps as a defensive measure to prevent vehicles from approaching, or simply as a consequence of whatever exotic physics they employ. In the Levelland case, one might imagine the UFO had an active plasma field around it (for propulsion or ionization) that coincidentally shorted out ignition systems within a certain radius. In the Malmstrom case, one might surmise the UFO intentionally targeted the missile electronics with some kind of microwave beam to demonstrate its capabilities. These ideas admittedly venture beyond mainstream science, but they are consistent with the pattern of temporary, localized, targeted interference seen in reports. Dr. McDonald testified that after reviewing many reports, he found the extraterrestrial hypothesis “the most likely” to explain the UFO evidence – essentially because no other single hypothesis fit the data as well[80]. NICAP’s own conclusion in The UFO Evidence was that the weight of evidence pointed to “intelligently guided vehicles” of unknown origin, and they highlighted electromagnetic cases as part of that evidence[81].

From today’s vantage point (the mid-2020s), what can we say? The UFO phenomenon is still not officially explained, but it is increasingly acknowledged as real and worthy of investigation (now often rebranded as “UAP” – Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). Incidents involving apparent physical effects continue to be reported. Modern car-stop cases are fewer (perhaps because newer cars with solid-state electronics are less susceptible to simple electromagnetic disruption than the ignition-coil engines of the 1950s), but they do still occur on occasion. There are also contemporary military reports of UAP causing radar and instrument anomalies. The U.S. Navy pilots who reported UAPs off the East Coast in 2014-2015 noted that their radar, IR tracking, and even cockpit displays sometimes acted erratically around the objects. In one recent public case (the 2004 USS Nimitz encounter with the “Tic Tac” object), crew aboard a Navy E-2C Hawkeye aircraft reported that the UFO jammed their radar – an act that in military terms is considered a hostile interference with equipment. Such accounts show that if these objects are advanced craft, they likely have sophisticated control of electromagnetic spectrum – either inadvertently or intentionally affecting our systems.

Importantly, science has not yet pinned down how these effects are achieved. We have only the descriptive data from witnesses and instruments. Faraday’s Law in physics tells us that a changing magnetic field can induce currents in a circuit – so a very strong time-varying magnetic field could certainly mess with an ignition coil or relay. Electromagnetic pulses (EMP), like those from a nuclear explosion, can fry electronics – but UFO-related interference seems more subtle (devices return to normal afterward, suggesting maybe no permanent damage, just temporary suppression). Some researchers speculate about microwave radiation: high-power microwaves can stop a car by disabling microprocessors or ignition (in fact, the U.S. military has developed prototype microwave “car stoppers” for checkpoints). In the 1950s, cars were simpler, but a sufficiently strong RF (radio frequency) field could ionize the spark plug gaps or saturate coils, effectively choking off the spark. In 2021, an intriguing scientific paper in the Journal of Scientific Exploration analyzed a famous 1978 case where a car allegedly was lifted by a UFO in Italy – the authors proposed a high-frequency electromagnetic beam could both magnetize the car’s chassis and affect the electrical system, though this remains hypothetical. The bottom line: mainstream science hasn’t observed UFOs in controlled conditions, so we’re left deducing the mechanism from the anecdotes.

What all sides agree on is the need for more data. Back in 1968, after Dr. McDonald expounded the coincidences of UFOs and outages, Congressman Ryan asked if it wasn’t “imperative” for agencies to investigate that link. McDonald replied he’d use the phrase “extremely desirable”[60]. Over half a century later, that sentiment still holds. Modern investigators, including some within official UAP task forces, recognize that vehicle interference cases might provide “low-hanging fruit” for study – these are instances where a UFO had a tangible effect, meaning there’s potentially measurable evidence (e.g., magnetized metal, burned-out circuits, etc.). Indeed, one recommendation from past UFO studies has been for authorities to collect physical data from interference sites (such as checking cars for residual magnetism or checking power station equipment for unusual surges). In the Levelland case, unfortunately, no such follow-up was done at the time. There was no inspection of the cars, no measurements of residual radiation or magnetism in the area. Such forensics were beyond the scope of 1957 Blue Book procedures, which were more about explaining cases quickly than scientifically probing them.

Conclusion

The saga of the Levelland UFO encounters and related electromagnetic disturbances illuminates both the intrigue and frustration of the UFO phenomenon. On one hand, the Levelland case presents a compelling tableau: multiple credible witnesses describing an inexplicable object that apparently reached out and touched our technology – stopping cars in their tracks – in a way that defies conventional explanation. The sheer number of independent reports and the uniformity of their details give the case a strength that few other sightings possess. It’s no wonder that Levelland has been frequently cited as one of the “classic” UFO cases, often included in compilations of evidence suggesting something real and extraordinary at work[82]. Moreover, Levelland opened our eyes to a whole category of UFO-related events – those involving physical effects on machines and infrastructure – which transcend the typical lights-in-the-sky narrative and suggest interactive phenomena that science might potentially examine.

On the other hand, the official response to Levelland – a quick attribution to ball lightning – highlights the tendency of authorities in that era to downplay and dismiss. In fairness, the Air Force in 1957 was tasked with preventing public panic and maintaining a stance that UFOs posed no threat. Admitting that an unknown object paralyzed vehicles across a Texas county would have been a very unsettling acknowledgment. From a Cold War military perspective, it was far more convenient to check off “solved: natural causes” and move on. This pattern repeated in case after case, breeding cynicism among the public and disillusionment among some scientists like Hynek who worked with Blue Book. The disconnect between the official explanations and the witnesses’ experiences became a driving force for civilian groups like NICAP, which accused the Air Force of conducting a mere public relations campaign rather than a serious investigation[35]. Indeed, NICAP’s 1964 report flatly concluded that the Air Force “answers to hundreds of [UFO] reports” in late 1957 (including Levelland) were delivered with a speed and certitude that cast doubt on the thoroughness and validity of those explanations[34][83].

What have we learned in the years since? Unfortunately, not as much as one might hope. Levelland remains officially “explained” by ball lightning in Air Force archives, a conclusion that most researchers today (even many skeptics) view as unsatisfactory. Ball lightning as a phenomenon is real but exceedingly rare and typically very small; it has never been demonstrated to disable cars on a wide scale. As our understanding of atmospheric electricity has improved, the invocation of ball lightning for Levelland looks more like a historical curiosity – an example of stretching a theory to fit an inconvenient observation. Other proposed explanations, like mass hysteria or coincidental mechanical failures, also fall short when scrutinized against the data. Thus, Levelland sits in the category of UFO cases without a convincing prosaic explanation.

For those inclined toward the extraterrestrial or advanced-technology hypothesis, Levelland provides a hint of what such technology might entail. If an alien craft were roaming the back roads of Texas that night, it apparently possessed an energy field (perhaps a propulsion system or defensive ionization field) strong enough to interact with ignition systems. Interestingly, it did not cause permanent damage – all vehicles recovered – which might indicate a non-destructive interference (as opposed to, say, an EMP that would blow out electronics). This has led to speculation that the effect could have been an inadvertent side-effect of the craft’s operation, rather than a deliberate act to strand motorists. Some witnesses, like Sheriff Clem, only saw the object at a distance and did not report engine failure; this could suggest the effect had a limited range. In narratives of alleged UFO encounters elsewhere, there are even cases where only cars within a certain radius stopped, while others farther away kept running, again implying a localized field.

From the perspective of electrical engineering, the Levelland events remain an intriguing unsolved puzzle. Modern cars, with computer controls, might react differently to a strong electromagnetic field than 1950s cars did. One wonders: if the same incident happened today, would drivers capture the phenomenon on cell phone cameras (providing the electronics in the phone still worked)? Would engine diagnostic computers record an error or anomaly? Unfortunately, despite many decades, a Levelland-like mass EM incident has not recurred in such a dramatic fashion. There have been smaller-scale repeats – for example, during a well-known 1976 UFO chase in Ohio, deputy sheriffs had radio static and headlights dimming when the UFO was near, and in a 1979 case in Spain a car’s engine, lights, and even tape recorder failed when a saucer appeared on a highway. But none with the sheer number of independent witnesses as Levelland. It stands almost unique, except perhaps for some events during the great UFO wave of November 1957 (like the Santa Fe, New Mexico case the same night, where an Army Jeep patrol at White Sands reported an egg-shaped craft and their jeep’s radio died[84][85]). Levelland and the cluster of cases around it might indicate a flap of activity where whatever intelligence behind UFOs was displaying a particular capability.

In the court of public opinion, Levelland helped cement the idea that UFOs can affect electronics. This became a staple of UFO lore – showing up in movies and books (the image of a car radio going to static and engine sputtering as a flying saucer approaches has appeared in countless fictional scenes). But this trope has firm grounding in real reports. For scientists, if one assumes for a moment that at least some UFO reports are genuine vehicles of unknown origin, then understanding the nature of their electromagnetic effects could be key to understanding the phenomenon. It could provide clues to propulsion (for instance, are they using high-frequency electromagnetic fields to reduce gravity or inertia?) or clues to intent (do they intentionally disable our tech to avoid retaliation or simply as a side-effect?). These are speculative questions, yet they are the kind that quietly motivate a subset of researchers even today.

One encouraging development is that current official UAP investigations (such as the Pentagon’s new AARO office) have better tools to gather data if another Levelland-style incident occurs. Sensors, satellites, and rapid communication mean an event can be cross-checked (e.g., did any power grid sensors pick up a spike at that time? Did any radar see an unknown target? etc.). In the 1950s, all we had were eyewitness words and maybe a field investigator with a clipboard. Now, the environment is filled with digital watchers. The hope among some UFO researchers is that sooner or later, hard data will emerge to confirm the reality of electromagnetic UFO effects – data that could sway even the skeptical scientists.

Until then, we are left with cases like Levelland as historical touchstones. They invite us to not only consider “Did it really happen as reported?” but also “What would it mean if it did?” The answers have big implications. If strange airborne objects can disable vehicles and black out cities, we clearly should seek to understand them – whether they turn out to be rare natural phenomena (with potential hazard to aviation and power networks) or something truly extraordinary like visitors with advanced technology. The balance of evidence, as presented by NICAP, Hynek, McDonald and others, leans toward the latter in the eyes of many: that we are dealing with intelligently controlled devices that periodically enter our environment and demonstrate capabilities beyond our own. Skeptics like Menzel counter that all of this can be explained by the propensity of humans to find patterns in coincidences and to be frightened by storms and lights in the sky.

In closing, the story of Levelland exemplifies the enduring challenge of UFO research: reconciling credible eyewitness evidence of seemingly incredible events with the demand for scientific proof. As of 2025, Levelland remains unexplained – a 60+ year-old cold case in the files of ufology. Yet it continues to be referenced in government studies and popular media alike as a key example of UFO phenomena. In a sense, those car engines stalling in the Texas darkness all those years ago have become a metaphor: a sudden, baffling stop to our normal expectations, leaving us momentarily powerless and in awe, and then just as suddenly the phenomenon is gone and we are left to restart our journey, pondering what we witnessed. Whatever the ultimate truth, the Levelland incident has secured its place in history as a reminder that there are mysteries at the fringes of our understanding – puzzles that challenge our technology and our imagination, urging us to keep searching for answers.

References

1. National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), The UFO Evidence (1964). Levelland case summary: “Many witnesses in series of sightings watched egg-shaped UFOs on or near ground, nine instances of car motors and lights failing” (NICAP Report No. 49)[1][2].
2. J. Allen Hynek, excerpt on Levelland (1957), reprinted by NICAP. Hynek notes the low probability of multiple car failures coinciding with the appearance of a UFO: “to combine this low probability event with the simultaneous appearance of a strange light…hovering over the car…is dubious at best”. Saucedo’s sworn statement describes the 200-foot “torpedo-shaped” object that “put my truck motor out and lights”, generating heat and wind before it departed.
3. Project Blue Book case file – USAF Press Release No. 1108-57 (November 1957). The Air Force attributed the Levelland sightings to “weather phenomena of an electrical nature, generally classified as ‘ball lightning’ or ‘St. Elmo’s fire,’ caused by stormy conditions in the area.” It reported finding only three witnesses who saw a “big light,” versus at least 10 reported in civilian investigations[20][36].
4. NICAP analysis of Blue Book’s investigation (Richard Hall, ed., The UFO Evidence, 1964). NICAP criticized the brevity of the official inquiry and the rapid “explained” label. It noted the Air Force investigator spent merely 7 hours in Levelland and that Blue Book’s quick answers “bear all the earmarks of public relations utterances designed to reassure the public…nothing truly unexplainable is being seen.”[34][35].
5. Donald H. Menzel and Lyle G. Boyd, The World of Flying Saucers (Doubleday, 1963), Chapter IX “E-M and G-Fields in UFO-Land.” Menzel’s skeptical account of Levelland argues that ball lightning was the cause. He notes an electrical storm was in progress (November 1957 was the wettest on record in west Texas) and suggests Saucedo saw an “example of that rare phenomenon.” Menzel points out the Air Force explanation – “ball lightning or St. Elmo’s fire” – and chides UFO proponents for protesting that, noting that “by some peculiar logic” they concluded neither was involved[38]. He emphasizes only three persons saw the object close-up, while others merely saw flashes, implying the rest were due to “general excitement” and not an object on the ground[19].
6. Dr. James E. McDonald, Statement on UFOs (House Committee on Science and Astronautics, July 29, 1968). In oral testimony, McDonald cited Levelland as a major case: “One famous case was at Levelland, Tex., in 1957. Ten vehicles were stopped…There was no lightning or thunderstorm, only a trace of rain.”[40][41] He urged that such physical-effect cases indicate a need for serious scientific investigation, rather than dismissal.
7. NICAP “Power Outages & UFOs” Report (Paul C. Smith, ca. 1968). A comparative graph of Federal Power Commission outage reports vs. Air Force UFO report frequency (1954–1969) showed a striking correlation – peaks and valleys in power failures tracked peaks in UFO sightings in most years[61]. McDonald’s testimony (same source) notes UFOs seen around the time of notable outages, e.g., Tamaroa, IL (Nov 1957, local 10-minute blackout after a UFO flash) and the Northeast Blackout (Nov 9, 1965, multiple UFO sightings across NY and New England during the grid failure)[86][55].
8. McDonald 1968, Q&A excerpt – discussion of UFOs and blackouts. McDonald mentions the 1965 New York blackout: witnesses in Long Island and upstate NY saw luminous objects ascending at the moment of the outage. He found it “puzzling that the pulse of current that tripped the relay…has never been identified” and called the coincidence of UFO reports “slightly disturbing.” No federal agency officially investigated that angle[56][51].
9. “Project Blue Book: Levelland UFO case” – The Black Vault archives (John Greenewald, ed.), summary updated 2020. Provides an overview: on Nov 2–3, 1957 multiple motorists around Levelland saw a brightly lit egg-shaped object either on the road or flying at low altitude, and vehicles experienced electrical failures during the encounters. The fire chief and sheriff also saw a glowing object (with one patrol car’s lights dimming)[9][87]. The official Air Force explanation at the time was ball lightning, a conclusion widely disputed as inadequate.
10. David M. Jacobs (comp.), UFOs and Related Subjects: An Annotated Bibliography (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), citing research by Lynn E. Catoe. This Library of Congress publication (produced for the Air Force Office of Scientific Research) noted patterns in UFO reports, including “7 UFO-related power failures” and numerous instances of electromagnetic interference, vehicle stoppages, etc., documented up to the late 1960s[50]. This indicates the phenomenon’s recurrence was acknowledged in official research literature, even if explanations were lacking.

[1] [2] [3] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [20] [34] [35] [36] [37] [39] [52] [74] [75] [83] [84] [85] The UFO Evidence

https://www.nicap.org/ufoe/UFO%20Evidence%201964.pdf

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [87] Project Blue Book: Levelland UFO case, November 2-3, 1957 – The Black Vault Case Files

https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/project-blue-book-levelland-ufo-case-november-2-3-1957/

[18] [19] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [38] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]  The World of Flying Saucers, by Donald H. Menzel and Lyle G. Boyd—A Project Gutenberg eBook

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/66639/66639-h/66639-h.htm

[40] [41] [42] [51] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [80] [81] [86] Blackouts & UFOs

https://www.nicap.org/outage_main.htm

[48] [49] [72] [73] [76] [77] [78] [79] New Page 1

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/mcdon3.htm

[50] [PDF] UFOs and Related Subjects: An Annotated Bibliography, Lynn E …

https://www.governmentattic.org/13docs/UFOsRelatedSubjBiblio_Catoe_1969.pdf

[53] section_8 – Nicap

http://www.nicap.org/ufoe/section_8.htm

[66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] The Malmstrom nuclear UFO incident (1967) returns | Meer

https://www.meer.com/en/74766-the-malmstrom-nuclear-ufo-incident-1967-returns

[82] File:The UFO Evidence by the National Investigations Committee on …

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_UFO_Evidence_by_the_National_Investigations_Committee_on_Aerial_Phenomena.pdf

The post The Vault Files: The Levelland UFO Incident (1957) first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post The Vault Files: The Levelland UFO Incident (1957) appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Video originally recorded by John Greenewald of The Black Vault in 2021

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Background
• Timeline of Events
• Primary Documentation
• Witness Accounts
• Media and Public Coverage
• Official Government Response
• Skeptical and Debunking Arguments
• Unresolved Questions
• Impact and Legacy
• Conclusion
• Citations and Sources

Executive Summary

In the early morning hours of September 19, 1976, multiple military and civilian witnesses in Tehran, Iran, experienced an unidentified flying object (UFO) encounter that has since become one of the most documented and debated cases in UFO history. Two Imperial Iranian Air Force F-4 Phantom II jet interceptors were scrambled to investigate a strange bright object in the sky, leading to dramatic claims of radar/visual contact and unexplained equipment failures[1][2]. What makes the Tehran incident especially significant is the wealth of official documentation it generated – including U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reports obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – and the high caliber of the witnesses involved (air force officers, a general, and experienced controllers)[3]. In this article, we will delve into the Tehran UFO incident in detail, examining the timeline of events, reviewing primary source documents, hearing from the witnesses, and considering both official analyses and skeptical explanations. By the end, you will understand why this 1976 encounter is often cited as a “classic” UFO case and what questions remain open about what really happened that night.

Background

By 1976, Iran (then under the Shah) was a close U.S. ally with a well-equipped military. The Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF) operated advanced U.S.-made aircraft and had radar stations and American-trained personnel. UFO sightings were not routine, so when strange reports emerged in Tehran’s night sky, they quickly drew military attention[4]. In the late hours of September 18, 1976 (approaching midnight of the 19th), the Air Force command post in Tehran’s Shemiran district received several anxious telephone calls from local citizens about a bright, unusual object hovering overhead[5]. The base night duty officer, General Nader Yousefi (the assistant deputy commander of operations), initially suspected the witnesses were just seeing a star or planet. However, after checking with the control tower at Mehrabad International Airport and then observing the phenomenon himself, General Yousefi realized the object was far brighter and larger than a normal star[6][7]. Concluding that something unexplained was in Tehran’s airspace, he ordered an immediate scramble of a fighter jet from Shahrokhi Air Force Base (near Hamadan) to investigate[8].

Key figures in this unfolding drama included Lieutenant Yaddi Nazeri, pilot of the first F-4 Phantom sent up, and Major Parviz Jafari, squadron commander who piloted the second F-4 sent up after the first encounter. They, along with their weapons officers and ground controllers (such as Mehrabad Tower supervisor Hossein Pirouzi), would soon become direct witnesses to a series of extraordinary events in the sky above Tehran. The stage was set for an encounter that would be recorded in official reports and later scrutinized by both governments and UFO researchers worldwide.

Timeline of Events

The following is a chronological timeline of the Tehran UFO incident, reconstructed from official declassified reports and witness statements:

1. ~12:30 a.m. (19 September 1976): Initial Sightings – The IIAF command post in northern Tehran received four separate calls from civilians reporting a strange object in the sky over the city[5]. Some callers described it as a “bird-like object,” while others thought it might be a helicopter with a bright light[9]. Mehrabad Airport’s tower confirmed no aircraft (such as helicopters) were scheduled or airborne in that area. After initially attributing the reports to stars, duty officer Gen. Yousefi went outside for a look. He was surprised to see an intensely bright object in the sky, “bigger and brighter” than an ordinary star[10][7]. Concerned, Yousefi ordered a F-4 Phantom II jet from Shahrokhi AFB (140 miles west of Tehran) to intercept.
2. 1:30 a.m.: First Intercept Attempt – The first F-4, piloted by Lt. Yaddi Nazeri, roared off the runway at Shahrokhi and streaked toward Tehran[11]. The brilliant object was so bright that the F-4’s crew could see it from 70 miles (110 km) away as they approached[11]. However, as Nazeri closed to about 25 nautical miles (≈46 km) of the UFO, his jet suddenly experienced a total loss of instrumentation and radio communications (UHF and intercom)[11]. All the onboard electronics went dead without warning, crippling the F-4’s navigation and weapons systems. Stunned, Nazeri broke off the intercept and turned away from the luminous object. Immediately after he distanced himself (and presumably was no longer perceived as a threat by the unknown object), the F-4’s instruments and radios came back to life on their own[12][11]. With his jet now functioning again, the pilot returned to base, and the perplexed IIAF controllers prepared to send up a second aircraft.
3. 1:40 a.m.: Second F-4 Scrambled – A second F-4 Phantom was launched from Shahrokhi AFB, this time commanded by Maj. Parviz Jafari with 1st Lt. Jalal Damirian as his weapons officer[13]. As Jafari’s Phantom neared Tehran, the backseat weapons officer detected the UFO on his radar scope at a range of 27 nautical miles, in their 12 o’clock position high above them[14]. The radar return was exceptionally strong – comparable to that of a Boeing 707 tanker aircraft in size[15]. The object’s light was also visible to the crew, described as an intense multi-colored flashing glow. Jafari later described it as a series of bright strobing lights flashing red, green, orange and blue so rapidly that all colors appeared at once[15][16]. As the F-4 closed to about 25 NM, the UFO accelerated and retreated, keeping the distance between it and the pursuing jet constant at roughly 25 NM despite Jafari’s interceptor moving at high speed[14]. This implied the object was capable of extraordinary acceleration.
4. 1:50 a.m.: Close Encounter and System Failures – While Jafari’s F-4 continued the chase south of Tehran, an alarming new development occurred. A second object suddenly emerged “out of the original object,” according to Jafari’s account[17]. This new object was smaller, very bright, and headed directly toward the F-4 at high speed, as if launched or deployed by the primary UFO[17]. Jafari, thinking he was under attack by a guided missile, prepared to defend himself. He attempted to launch an AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missile at the incoming object – but at that exact moment his weapons control panel went dead[18]. Simultaneously, the F-4 again lost all communications (both radio and intercom), rendering Jafari unable to fire or even call out a warning[19]. The pilot immediately took evasive action, turning hard and diving (pulling a negative-G maneuver) to break away. The pursuer object then fell in behind the F-4, trailing it at an estimated distance of 3–4 NM[20]. Moments later, this second object broke off, turned sharply, and rejoined the primary UFO – executing what looked like a precise re-docking maneuver with the “mothership”[21]. Once Jafari was no longer attempting to engage, his jet’s control panel and radios came back online, as had happened with the first F-4[20].
5. Post-Encounter Phenomena (Approx. 2:00 a.m.): Descent of a Third Object – With the aggressive smaller object back inside it, the primary UFO soon did something equally unexpected. Jafari’s crew observed another object separate from the opposite side of the main object, but this time it shot straight downward toward the ground at great speed[22]. Expecting a fiery impact, the F-4 crew was astonished to see the descending object slow down and land gently on the earth’s surface, emitting a brilliant glow that illuminated an area roughly 2–3 kilometers across[23]. The location of this light appeared to be near Karaj, a region west of Tehran, in a dry lake bed. Jafari circled to mark the coordinates of the glow for later investigation[24]. At this point, having descended from 25,000 ft to about 15,000 ft altitude to keep the ground object in sight, the F-4 crew began to approach Mehrabad airport for landing, as fuel was running low and the situation had stabilized.
6. Interference and a Mysterious Aerial Object on Landing Approach – As Jafari’s F-4 lined up for final approach to Mehrabad, they encountered intermittent communication interference. Specifically, “each time they passed through a magnetic bearing of 150 degrees from Mehrabad,” the jet’s UHF radio and interphone would filled with static or cut out, and even the inertial navigation system (INS) showed fluctuations of 30–50 degrees[25]. This suggested some localized electromagnetic disturbance in a certain sector near the airport. Around the same time, a civilian airliner on approach to Mehrabad also experienced a radio failure in roughly the same area (known as the Kilo Zulu location), though that airliner’s crew did not see anything unusual in the sky[26]. While flying the long final approach, Jafari’s crew themselves suddenly spotted yet another unusual object in the vicinity. This one was described as cylindrical or tube-shaped, about the apparent size of a T-33 jet trainer at 10 miles distance, with bright steady lights at each end and a flashing strobe light in the middle[27]. The Phantom’s crew asked Tehran Tower if there was any other known traffic in the area – the answer was no[27]. At the F-4’s request, controllers on the ground looked out and managed to visually spot this cylindrical object as it passed overhead, after the pilot directed them where to look (between the mountains and an oil refinery)[28]. The tower watched it until it disappeared behind the mountains. This mysterious object did not interfere with the F-4, but its presence added one more layer to the night’s high strangeness.
7. Daybreak, 19 September 1976: Ground Search – After the F-4 landed safely, Iranian authorities swiftly organized a daybreak investigation of the area where the luminous object had seemingly landed. That morning, Jafari and his weapons officer were flown by helicopter to the dry lake bed west of Tehran that had been illuminated the night before[29]. On arrival, they found no obvious trace of a crash or landing – no burn marks, debris, or impact crater on the dry lake surface[29]. As the search team circled outward, however, they detected a “very noticeable beeper signal” emanating from a nearby location to the west of the suspected landing site[30]. Tracking the signal to its strongest point, the helicopter touched down by a small house with a garden. The occupants of the house reported that they had heard a loud noise and seen a blinding bright light “like lightning” during the night, at about the same time the F-4 crew saw the object descend[31]. These locals had been terrified but had no idea what it was. The source of the beeping signal turned out to be a small portable transponder – essentially a radio beacon – which was found in the area[32]. It was later determined to be an aircraft homing beacon (transponder) that coincidentally was broadcasting in that vicinity (reportedly jettisoned from an Iranian C-130 or C-141 transport plane sometime before)[32]. Meanwhile, the Iranian team took soil samples and checked the site and the F-4 for any residual radiation, given the object’s proximity and strange effects, but no results of those tests were ever released publicly[33][34].
8. Aftermath and Reporting – By the end of 19 September 1976, the immediate investigation by the Iranian Air Force had concluded with no definitive explanation. However, U.S. defense attachés in Iran (and intelligence personnel) were promptly notified of the incident. A detailed initial report of the encounter – essentially an intelligence cable – was transmitted to U.S. agencies on the same day. This teletype report was sent to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and widely distributed to American defense and security organizations around the world[35]. The incident garnered high-level attention because it occurred in a tense region (near the Soviet border, during the Cold War) and involved apparent technical malfunctions of advanced U.S.-built jets. In the coming days, Iranian officials stated that if any further information developed (e.g. analysis of the landing site or radar data), it would be passed on. The last line of the initial report noted: “More information will be forwarded when it becomes available.”[36]. In reality, after this flurry of activity, no additional reports were forthcoming. The case file was essentially closed with more questions than answers, leaving this encounter to become an enduring mystery in UFO lore.

Primary Documentation

One reason the 1976 Tehran case stands out is the abundance of official documentation available. Unlike many UFO sightings that rely only on witness testimony, this incident generated formal military reports and memos that have since been declassified.

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

These primary sources allow researchers to corroborate the sequence of events and claims made by the witnesses:

• DIA Intelligence Report (Initial Teletype Message): The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency’s Intelligence Information Report on the Tehran UFO encounter is a three-page message that was classified at the time but later released under FOIA on August 31, 1977[37]. This report, often referred to as the “Joint Chiefs of Staff cable,” recounts the incident in detail (it is the source for the timeline above). It begins: “This report forwards information concerning the sighting of a UFO in Iran on 19 September 1976.”[38] and proceeds to describe points A through E (corresponding to the chronological events) in a matter-of-fact, military tone. The full text of this DIA message is publicly accessible via The Black Vault’s digital archives[39]. Within it, one finds verbatim quotes of the pilots (relayed through the Iranian controllers) and technical details such as radar readings, electromagnetic effects on the F-4s, and the description of the UFO’s appearance[15][17]. The report was marked “Unclassified” (perhaps surprisingly, given its extraordinary content) and carried the notation that it was being widely distributed to U.S. defense and intelligence recipients[35]. Notably, the document’s distribution list confirms copies were sent to the White House, the Secretary of State, the CIA, and multiple high-ranking military commands[35] – reflecting the incident’s perceived importance.

• Defense Information Report Evaluation (DIA Form): Attached to the above DIA report was an evaluation form used by intelligence analysts to rate the information’s quality and significance. The DIA evaluators gave the Iran UFO report high marks. According to that form, the information was “confirmed by other sources” and of “High (unique, timely, and of major significance)” value[40][41]. In the remarks section, the DIA analyst wrote: “An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon.”[42]. The criteria listed included:

• Multiple reliable witnesses from different locations (civilian and aircrew, ground and airborne)[43].
• Highly credible observers (an Air Force general, trained pilots, and experienced tower controllers)[44].
• Visual sightings confirmed by radar tracking[45].
• Electromagnetic effects reported on three separate aircraft (both jets and the airliner) during the encounter[46][47].
• Physiological effects on crew (temporary night vision loss due to the brightness of the object)[48].
• An “inordinate amount of maneuverability” displayed by the UFO(s) – far beyond conventional aircraft capabilities[46][49].

This unusually strong endorsement by DIA officials underscores how seriously the case was taken internally. The actual DIA evaluation form and the famous quoted remark (“classic which meets all criteria…”) were obtained years later from U.S. archives (specifically via an NSA release) and can be viewed today courtesy of The Black Vault and NICAP’s online documents[3][42].

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

• NSA Memorandum (Captain Henry S. Shields’ Statement): Another declassified document related to the Tehran case came from the U.S. National Security Agency. The NSA release included a cover memorandum written in October 1978 by USAF Captain Henry S. Shields, summarizing the Tehran incident for Air Force intelligence channels[50]. Captain Shields’ statement (initially classified “Confidential”) prefaced the original incident report with his commentary. While the full text of his memo is not reproduced here, it essentially reiterates the remarkable aspects of the case and notes its credibility. Shields’ write-up was part of an internal Air Force intelligence publication – in fact, pages from an Air Force Security Service bulletin (often cited as the MIJI Quarterly – standing for Meaconing, Intrusion, Jamming, and Interference) that discussed the Tehran encounter as an example of electronic interference with aircraft[51]. This indicates that the U.S. military’s communications and radar experts were using the case as a learning example in the context of possible hostile jamming or novel aerial threats. The NSA’s declassified package (which included Shields’ intro and the Tehran incident text) was released with redactions, but is available via The Black Vault’s FOIA archive (Document #NSA–Iran 1976 UFO)[50].
• Iranian Investigative Reports: Unfortunately, any official Iranian Air Force report or data beyond what was shared with the U.S. is hard to obtain. The incident occurred during the reign of the Shah, but just a few years later the Iranian Revolution (1979) resulted in upheaval and the loss or sealing of many military records. It’s been said that the Iranian file on the case was about “1.5 inches thick” with radar tapes and technical analysis, but none of that has been made public[52]. Thus, the DIA report and its attachments remain the primary authoritative source on the Tehran incident available to researchers.

Throughout this article, direct quotes are used from these primary documents wherever possible. By examining the declassified cables and memos, one can move beyond rumor or distortion and see exactly what was reported by the personnel involved. The Tehran UFO incident’s documentation is unusually rich, and it paints a vivid picture of a perplexing encounter that left both Iranian and U.S. officials impressed and mystified in equal measure.

Witness Accounts

The Tehran UFO encounter had an array of witnesses, each providing a unique perspective on the events. Their accounts, coming from both ground observers and aircrew, converge on the observation of a bright, maneuvering object (or objects) that affected aircraft systems. However, there are also discrepancies and subjective impressions worth noting. Here is the summary of the key witness testimonies:

• Civilian Callers: The first witnesses were at least four civilians in the Shemiran district of Tehran who phoned the authorities around midnight on September 19 to report something unusual in the sky[5]. Some described it as a “bird-like” object with a light, others as a helicopter without the sound[9]. These reports established that something bright was visible and concerning enough to prompt calls. While their identities remain anonymous in reports, these citizens’ descriptions were taken seriously enough by the IIAF command post to prompt an investigation.
• General Nader Yousefi (IIAF Deputy Ops Commander): Gen. Yousefi was essentially the first military witness. After receiving the calls and checking with air traffic control, he looked up at the sky from his north Tehran residence or post and saw the object firsthand[53]. He later recounted that it was extremely bright and unlike any star or aircraft he would normally expect. It was Yousefi who decided to scramble the jets. His involvement is documented in internal Iranian accounts and he is cited as initially skeptical but then quickly convinced by his own observation that an unidentified craft was overhead[7][54]. (Years later, Iranian sources indicated that Yousefi and other senior officers were convinced the object was not a terrestrial aircraft at all.)
• Lieutenant Yaddi Nazeri (Pilot of the First F-4): Lt. Nazeri flew the first interceptor that took off at 1:30 a.m. He got as close as ~25 miles to the UFO before experiencing the dramatic electrical failure. Although Nazeri’s personal narrative is not extensively published in Western sources, the radio transmissions from his harrowing approach were monitored by the control tower. According to one account, as his jet suffered the outage, Nazeri urgently radioed (on a backup channel) words to the effect of: “When I get closer, the object makes my systems shut down… I’m scared… I have to break off!”[55]. Ground control instructed him that if it was too dangerous he should disengage[56]. Nazeri’s testimony (as relayed in the DIA report) was that once he turned away, everything came back on and he returned to base[12]. His experience established two crucial facts: the UFO could apparently disable aircraft systems at a distance, and that effect ceased when the plane distanced itself. Nazeri, understandably, was shaken by this encounter – effectively being “blinded” in a multimillion-dollar fighter by an unknown force.
• Major Parviz Jafari (Pilot of the Second F-4): Maj. Jafari’s experience has become the most famous, as he engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with the UFO. Jafari went on the record multiple times about what he witnessed. In interviews and testimony (including a 2007 appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.), Jafari confirmed and elaborated on the report details. He described the UFO as a huge luminous shape that at one point “was flashing with intense red, green, orange and blue lights so bright that I was not able to see its body”[16]. He also recounted the moment the smaller object shot out: “I was startled by a round object which came out of the primary object, coming straight toward me at a high rate of speed, like a missile. I tried to launch a heat-seeker at it, but suddenly, nothing was working – my weapons control panel was out, and I lost all the instruments, and the radio.”[57]. Jafari’s recollection of the crew’s attempt to chase the second object downwards is vivid: he expected an explosion on the ground that never came, as the object seemed to slow and softly land, casting an eerie glow over the desert[58]. The next day, Jafari personally helped in the helicopter search, and although they found no crash, he noted the locals’ report of a light and noise confirmed his own observations[59]. Jafari later stated that during the encounter he also saw a third object (the cylinder) appear overhead during landing, further confirming the report data[27]. Having retired as a general, Parviz Jafari has consistently stood by his account. He has been quoted as saying he believes the main UFO demonstrated technology far beyond any known human capabilities. His honest astonishment and descriptive testimony (corroborated by radar and his backseater) make him one of the most compelling UFO witnesses on record.
• 1st Lt. Jalal Damirian (Weapons Officer, Second F-4): Lt. Damirian was Jafari’s backseat radar intercept officer. While he hasn’t given as many public statements, his role was crucial. Damirian acquired and monitored the radar lock on the UFO at 27 NM distance and saw it break lock when the object zoomed away[14]. He also would have been the one attempting to arm and fire the Sidewinder missile – and thus directly witnessed the failure of the weapons panel at the critical moment[19]. Damirian’s inputs are reflected in the official report (e.g. the measurement of closure rate, the radar size of the target, etc.). It’s clear that both Jafari and Damirian were observing the object: visually and on instruments. Damirian later helped guide the helicopter to the site using the coordinates they had marked. His testimony has mostly come through Jafari or the written report, but it fully corroborates Jafari’s descriptions of the UFO’s performance.
• Mehrabad Airport Tower Controllers: The air traffic controllers in Tehran’s main tower also became eyewitnesses, albeit briefly. During Jafari’s final approach, when the cylinder-shaped object was reported above the F-4, the pilot radioed the tower to look for it[28]. Initially the object was not in the tower’s line of sight, but after Jafari gave them a reference (between two known landmarks), the tower personnel managed to spot the UFO and track it until it disappeared behind terrain[28]. This is significant: it means independent ground observers saw that secondary UFO, confirming it was a real object and not a cockpit illusion. Additionally, throughout the night the controllers were in communication with the F-4 crews and heard first-hand their exclamations about equipment failing and lights in the sky. One supervisor, Hossein Pirouzi, later told a TV program that during the chase, Jafari’s excitement was evident and at one point the pilot was “in a panic with the large UFO on his tail” (when the smaller object was chasing)[60]. Pirouzi advised Jafari to return if it was too dangerous. The tower’s perspective was essentially that multiple UFOs were on their radar and visually spotted, while two of their country’s front-line jets struggled to even get close due to inexplicable outages. This made a deep impression on the Iranian controllers.
• Local Residents near the Landing Site: Although not direct witnesses to the flying object, the people living by the dry lake bed west of Tehran provide an important piece of the puzzle. When Maj. Jafari and the recovery team visited them in the morning, these villagers recounted being awakened by a deafening noise and a blinding flash at approximately 2 a.m.[31]. They thought perhaps a plane had exploded or lightning had struck extremely close. Their testimony lines up exactly with the time and location that Jafari saw the second object descend and glow on the ground. The fact that a tangible effect (light and sound) was experienced by those on the ground strengthens the case that something physical, not just an optical illusion, occurred during the incident.

In summary, the Tehran incident had multiple corroborating witnesses across different platforms: civilian observers, ground radar and tower staff, an Iranian general, and two separate F-4 aircrews. All independently reported aspects of the same event: a brightly lit UFO that could outmaneuver jets and seemingly disable electrical systems at will. While minor details vary in personal retellings (for instance, exactly how each pilot described the colors or shape), there is remarkable consistency on the core events. This convergence of testimony – from frightened citizens to seasoned military officers – is a major reason the 1976 Tehran case is so respected in UFO literature. At the same time, the sensational nature of what these witnesses describe invites healthy skepticism, which is addressed in later sections.

Media and Public Coverage

When the Tehran UFO incident occurred in 1976, it initially did not receive widespread international media coverage. Iran’s government and military were not in the habit of publicizing such encounters, and the U.S. intelligence report on the incident remained classified for a time. Thus, there were no newspaper headlines in 1976 trumpeting “UFO Disables Iranian Jets” or the like. The story emerged into the public realm gradually over the ensuing years, mainly through UFO researchers and later through mainstream media retrospectives:

• Initial Secrecy and UFO Research Circles: For about a year after September 1976, knowledge of the incident was limited to military circles. Rumors of “something” happening leaked into UFOlogy circles by 1977. In 1978, American UFO researcher Charles Huffer tried to obtain official confirmation while abroad, but met with “official rebuffs”[61]. The breakthrough came with a Freedom of Information Act request. In mid-1977, the DIA intelligence report was declassified and released to a UFO group (believed to be NICAP or CUFOS) and then widely shared among researchers. It quickly became evident this was a major case: the distribution list on the document was impressive and suggested high-level U.S. interest[35]. By 1978-79, summaries of the Tehran incident appeared in UFO newsletters and journals. For example, International UFO Reporter (IUR) ran a detailed piece calling it “The Iran Case” and marveling at the Pentagon’s interest[62][63]. In 1985, British researchers Fawcett and Greenwood included a chapter on it in their book Clear Intent, further disseminating the case to the public[52].
• Television and Documentaries: The case got a big boost in public awareness in the 1990s thanks to TV coverage. The American TV series “Sightings” (which focused on paranormal phenomena) featured the 1976 Tehran encounter in a 1994 episode, including interviews with some participants. The show interviewed an Iranian air traffic controller (Hossein Pirouzi) and others, dramatizing the dogfight and highlighting the FOIA documents. This brought the incident to the attention of a broad audience who may not have read UFO reports. Over the years, the Tehran case has also been discussed on History Channel specials and other UFO documentaries as one of the top military UFO encounters on record.
• Mainstream Print Media Retrospectives: In the 2000s and 2010s, as governments (like the UK’s Ministry of Defence) released UFO files and public interest in older cases was rekindled, major media outlets began listing the Tehran incident among the “all-time great UFO cases.” For instance, The Daily Telegraph (UK) in 2009 ranked it in a “Top 10 UFO sightings” feature, noting how the jets’ instruments were paralyzed by the UFO. The Guardian (UK) in 2013 also included Tehran 1976 in its “Top 10 UFO sightings” list, describing how “a UFO allegedly whizzed over Iran’s capital, disabling the electronic instrumentation of two F-4 Phantom II jets and jamming ground control equipment”[64]. The Guardian piece even noted that “Iranian generals said on record that they thought the object was extra-terrestrial.”[65] – a reference to comments made by individuals like Gen. Jafari in later years. Such mainstream media references solidified the incident’s reputation as a truly extraordinary encounter.
• Contemporary Online Coverage: Today, the Tehran incident is profiled on countless websites, from Wikipedia to dedicated UFO databases and blogs. It often carries titles like “The 1976 Iran UFO Dogfight” or “Tehran Jet UFO Chase”. Enthusiast sites highlight it as “one of the most well-documented and fascinating UFO encounters ever reported by military pilots”[54]. Even new startups like Enigma Labs (a UAP research organization) have an entry on it, ensuring that new generations become aware of the case[66]. Discussions on forums like Reddit and Metabunk continue to debate the incident, keeping it in the public eye nearly 50 years later.
• Local Iranian Media: Interestingly, after the revolution, Iran’s stance on UFOs became muted, but in recent years some Iranian media have occasionally recounted the 1976 incident, usually framed as a historical curiosity or in the context of discussing “mysterious events” in the Shah’s era. Given that one of the principal witnesses, Parviz Jafari, rose to prominence (and even spoke at an international press event in 2007), his story made its way back into Persian-language news as well. Iranian audiences thus eventually learned that one of their retired generals had once tried to shoot down a UFO, anecdotally an object of some national pride or at least intrigue.

Overall, the path from secret military report to international headlines took time. By now, however, the Tehran incident is frequently cited in both popular culture and serious studies whenever examples of credible UFO encounters are needed. It straddles the line between fringe and mainstream: once confined to FOIA archives and UFO journals, but today recognized enough that major newspapers and television shows reference it as a classic unexplained case. The media coverage, while occasionally sensationalized (“alien mothership over Tehran!”), has largely echoed what the official documents themselves say, which is remarkable in itself. This alignment owes to the solidity of those documents – reporters can literally quote from government files instead of relying on rumors.

In summary, though virtually unknown to the public in 1976, the Tehran UFO incident has since earned global attention as a benchmark case. Its journey from classified file to public knowledge underscores the role of FOIA, researchers, and open dialogue in illuminating these once-shadowy encounters.

Official Government Response

Both the Iranian and U.S. governments were involved – in different ways – in responding to the Tehran UFO encounter. While neither government publicly announced definitive conclusions, the internal communications and actions are telling:

• Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF) Reaction: On the Iranian side, the event was treated as a serious defense incident. The IIAF’s immediate actions (scrambling jets, conducting a helicopter survey, checking for radiation) indicate they approached it as a potential security threat or foreign intrusion[29][33]. Iranian officials briefed the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group in Tehran (hence the U.S. got the report) but did not make public statements at the time. It appears the Shah’s government preferred to keep the incident low-profile to avoid public panic or embarrassment. There is no evidence of an official Iranian press release in 1976 acknowledging a “UFO”. However, high-ranking Iranian officers openly discussed it later. In an interview years afterward, General Yousefi (the officer who ordered the scramble) reportedly expressed that the object was unlike any aircraft he knew of. Additionally, in the 1990s and 2000s, when Iranian media asked some of the retired military involved, they confirmed the event’s authenticity. Overall, Iran’s official stance was largely silence, but internally they catalogued it as an Unidentified Flying Object incident with potential defense implications (since it overflew their capital and neutralized weapon systems).
• United States Response: Though this was an incident in foreign airspace, the U.S. had a keen interest. At the time, Iran was a key ally and the U.S. had personnel stationed there and providing technical support for the F-4s. The U.S. Defense Attaché in Tehran gathered information and likely authored the initial report that became the DIA cable[67]. Once transmitted, that report rapidly made its way through U.S. intelligence channels. Notably, the distribution list included the White House, State Department, CIA, NSA, and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, among others[35]. This extensive distribution might seem to imply alarm, but according to a Pentagon liaison later interviewed, any incident in the Middle East of significant interest tended to be widely shared in those days[68]. In other words, because the event happened in a sensitive region (near the USSR and during a period of heightened tensions), it got sent “to the top” routinely[69]. That said, the DIA’s formal evaluation of the report (calling it an “outstanding report” and a “classic UFO case”) shows that U.S. analysts did find it intriguing and worthy of further study[42].

• However, what did the U.S. do with this information? Officially, the U.S. Air Force had closed its public UFO investigations in 1969 (Project Blue Book), and in 1976 there was no declared UFO office. Yet here we have the U.S. military treating a UFO report very seriously. Internally, agencies like DIA and NSA filed it under Foreign Intelligence and communications interference. The NSA, for example, classified some pages related to the case until the 1990s. An NSA internal note even highlighted that the case met all “valid UFO study” criteria[3]. The U.S. government never publicly commented on Tehran 1976 in an official capacity. But in 1977, President Jimmy Carter (who had his own UFO sighting in 1969) took office; one might wonder if Carter was briefed given the report went to the White House. There’s no direct evidence he was, but the report was likely available for review by the National Security Council. No public initiative came of it, though.

• Investigations and Communication: The U.S. did not send a special team to Iran or anything overt. However, the intelligence report itself mentions that the Iranian side was checking for radiation and that further info would be forwarded[36]. If any further data (like radar tapes or analyses) were sent, they haven’t been released. The incident did appear in at least two U.S. intelligence publications afterward: one was the NSA’s UFO documents file (declassified later) and another was an Air Force Security Service MIJI report, which was a classified quarterly focusing on jamming and interference. The MIJI newsletter editorialized the Tehran case as an example of unexplained interference with electronics[51]. This indicates the incident was studied within the context of electronic warfare. Was it Soviet jamming? Likely not (the characteristics didn’t match any known enemy capability). But the U.S. could not ignore that two advanced jets were effectively disabled in the air. It’s known that after the incident, some U.S. technical personnel in Iran inspected the F-4’s systems for malfunction causes (finding no definitive fault beyond the one jet’s prior history)[70].
• No Official Explanation: Importantly, neither the Iranian nor U.S. governments ever issued an “explanation” for the Tehran UFO in official channels. In many UFO cases, an Air Force might say “it was a weather balloon” or “a training exercise.” In this case, no such public debunking came from the authorities at the time. The U.S. documents simply catalog the facts and label it a UFO – meaning something unidentified. Iran’s military, being pre-revolution and with close U.S. ties, likely shared all relevant info with the U.S. team in Tehran, but if they had an explanation, it’s not recorded. Decades later, the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence community still occasionally reference the Tehran case in analyses. In 2021, when the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) published a report on UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena), they focused on more recent cases but acknowledged that historically there have been a few well-documented military UFO encounters. Though they didn’t name Tehran 1976 specifically in the unclassified report, in UFOlogical circles it’s often brought up as a benchmark. Even a former Director of CIA, John Brennan, alluded in a 2020 interview that some historic military UFO incidents remain unexplained and “interesting” – presumably Tehran among them.

In summary, the official government response was characterized by intense behind-the-scenes interest and documentation, but public silence. Iran treated it as a defense matter and briefed their American allies. The U.S. treated it as an intelligence data point – albeit a very intriguing one – to be circulated among relevant agencies. High-ranking officers were aware of the case (e.g., the Commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, who got the memo[71]). Yet, beyond quietly filing it away as “Unexplained (possible UFO)”, there was no follow-up task force or press conference. This low-key response may reflect the stigma around UFOs in officialdom – even in 1976, after Project Blue Book, there was no appetite to publicly engage the topic. Still, behind closed doors, Tehran 1976 clearly raised eyebrows in the defense community. It remains one of the rare incidents that prompted intercontinental military communication at the highest levels about a “UFO”.

Skeptical and Debunking Arguments

No extraordinary incident goes unquestioned, and the Tehran UFO case is no exception. Over the years, skeptics and aviation experts have proposed more conventional explanations for the events of that night. While the Tehran incident is often touted by UFO proponents as strong evidence of something unknown, skeptics argue that a combination of misidentifications and prosaic failures could account for much of the story. Here are the main skeptical theories and counterpoints:

• Astronomical Misidentification: A leading hypothesis is that the initial bright “UFO” was actually an astronomical body – specifically the planet Jupiter. Prominent UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass investigated the case in the late 1970s and noted that Jupiter was extremely bright in the Tehran sky in September 1976[72]. According to Klass, when Gen. Yousefi and the pilots saw a distant bright light that seemed stationary or slow-moving, it could well have been Jupiter (or possibly another star/planet). Indeed, Klass pointed out that the F-4s were vectored to fly to the north of Tehran – which would match the direction of Jupiter at that time[73]. Once in the area, the crews might have been “chasing” a star without realizing it. James Oberg, a respected aerospace writer, concurred that Jupiter was a likely culprit for the main object’s appearance[72]. Skeptics note that under night flying conditions, depth perception is poor and a bright celestial object can appear to follow an aircraft or jump around as the plane turns (a known illusion). Counterpoint: Proponents respond that while Jupiter might explain a steady bright light, it does not explain the dramatic maneuvering sub-object, the radar lock, or the instrument failures. Moreover, Jafari reported the object moving in jumps of 10 degrees in heading[74], which is unlike an actual planet’s fixed position.
• Equipment Failure and Pilot Error: Skeptics like Klass also emphasize the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Iranian F-4 jets. Notably, only one of the two F-4s was confirmed to have serious instrumentation failure – and that was the first F-4, which according to Klass had a documented history of electrical problems[70][75]. The Westinghouse technician at Shahrokhi Air Base stated that that particular F-4 had longstanding wiring issues and had even been in maintenance a month earlier[70]. Thus, its sudden electronics outage might not require a UFO at all; it could have been an onboard fault. Additionally, Klass obtained an opinion from a McDonnell Douglas repair supervisor suggesting that the second F-4’s radar could have been in a mis-setting (manual track mode), which might create the illusion of a solid lock on a non-existent object or amplify a false return[76]. Regarding the weapons panel going dead exactly when the pilot tried to fire: skeptics suggest this could have been an unfortunate coincidence or a short circuit triggered by arming the weapons system (which on that model of F-4 was tied into the same electrical bus that had issues). Counterpoint: This argument does not fully address why the systems came back when the plane turned away, nor why the second F-4 (which was a different aircraft) also experienced failures at key moments. While one F-4 had known issues, to have two jets suffer glitches in sequence only when nearing a certain point in the sky is a stretch if purely coincidental.
• Physiological Factors and Fatigue: It’s important to note that the aircrews were roused in the middle of the night for this unscheduled mission. Martin Bridgstock, a skeptical researcher, pointed out that the Iranian pilots were likely fatigued and under stress, which can lead to misperceptions and overreactions[77]. Adrenaline and confusion in a night chase might cause a pilot to think equipment is failing due to an external source when it might be just a flip of a wrong switch or temporary disorientation. Bridgstock summarized Klass’s view: one jet had the failures (not two), the crew were “tired and rattled” and could have mistaken stars or meteors for chasing UFOs or missiles[75]. For example, the sense of a “missile” coming at Jafari could have been a bright meteor in his field of vision, given that it was the peak of multiple meteor showers that night (19 September was during the Gamma Piscids and Southern Piscids showers)[78]. A streaking meteor could look like a fast-moving object shooting by, and meteors can come in twos or threes in short succession during a shower peak, potentially accounting for “objects” seemingly coming out of the primary UFO. Counterpoint: The meteor hypothesis indeed aligns with the date, and even UFO enthusiasts concede a meteor (or re-entering space debris) might explain a bright object “falling with a trail”. In fact, one of the bright objects Jafari saw descending could well have been a meteor – except that in his account, it came to a slow stop on the ground which meteors do not do. The transponder found could also indicate some unrelated military flares or activities complicating the scene. Fatigue and excitement might have amplified the crew’s interpretation of ordinary lights.
• The Ground “Landing” and Transponder: Brian Dunning, of the Skeptoid podcast, argues that much of the mystery of the Tehran case dissolves when you remove an extraterrestrial assumption[78][79]. He notes that the supposed landing of an object corresponded with the discovery of a downed military aircraft’s transponder beacon in that area[32]. Dunning suggests the beacon (emitting the beeping signal) could have been accidentally dropped by an aircraft previously and was pure coincidence – or that the F-4 crew might have homed in on this signal in the dark, mistakenly thinking it was related to the UFO. The bright light seen on the ground could have been a flare or the final burn of a meteor. The local villagers hearing a loud noise and flash supports that something natural like a bolide (exploding meteor) occurred overhead. Dunning and others also mention that radio communication failures are not uncommon on aircraft in general – thus the civilian airliner losing radio near the same spot might have zero to do with UFOs and more to do with a known radio interference zone or simply bad timing[75]. In Dunning’s view, nothing demonstrated by the Tehran case was unique: pilots have misidentified stars and planets countless times; aircraft have had instrument failures; meteors fall; and coincidences happen. He famously wrote, “Once we look at all the story’s elements without presuming an alien spacecraft, the only thing unusual about the Tehran 1976 case is that planes were chasing celestial objects and had equipment failures.”[79]. In other words, each aspect might be explainable by separate mundane causes, and it was our human pattern-seeking that wove it into one exotic narrative. Counterpoint: Proponents respond that Dunning’s approach “explains away” too much by chopping the narrative into pieces. It requires multiple coincidental events: Jupiter and meteors and a fluke double aircraft failure, and a stray transponder. While possible individually, the odds of all occurring in one incident are low. Additionally, Jafari’s own radar lock and the Tehran tower’s visual confirmation of an object suggest there really was a structured craft or device up there, not just misperceptions. Skeptics counter that the radar lock might have been on the wrong target or false, and the tower only saw what the pilot directed them to — possibly the same star or far light the pilot was chasing, finally visible once pointed out.
• No Recorded Radar Tapes or Hard Data: Skeptics often underscore that beyond eyewitness reports and written summaries, we lack physical evidence. There are no publicly released radar scope photos, no instrument data printouts, no recovered objects. If this UFO was real and tangible, it left no recoverable trace (other than maybe that transponder which was terrestrial). The lack of hard evidence opens the door to doubt. Perhaps the radar “blip” was just noise or a false target. Perhaps the bright light was an oil flare or a phenomenon like St. Elmo’s fire or ball lightning (though ball lightning that size would be unprecedented). The bottom line for skeptics is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and for Tehran 1976, they feel the evidence can be interpreted in ordinary ways.

In assessing these skeptical arguments, it’s clear they explain certain elements well (e.g., Jupiter’s presence, one jet’s maintenance issues, meteor timing). Even UFO researchers acknowledge some of these factors likely played a role – for instance, Jupiter was almost certainly the “star” the initial callers saw and possibly what Yousefi first saw, until it started moving. And indeed, the first F-4’s outage could have been partly due to its own faults.

However, the skeptics have to discount or attribute to error some of the most salient aspects: simultaneous multiple system failures on separate aircraft, a radar lock tracked with considerable detail, and the structured multi-colored nature of the UFO as described by pilots. Skeptics lean on the fallibility of human perception under duress. Believers lean on the consistency of multiple trained observers backed by radar and the DIA’s confidence in the report’s veracity.

Ultimately, the case has not been “solved” to everyone’s satisfaction. Even Klass, who wrote a detailed analysis, could not prove his Jupiter theory — he could only assert it was likely. No definitive prosaic cause was ever documented by Iranian or U.S. authorities. This leaves the Tehran incident in a gray zone: credible enough to avoid dismissal, but weird enough to defy easy explanation. The truth may incorporate some of the above skeptical elements (e.g., perhaps a combination of a real unknown object and misidentified celestial lights and meteors).

The skeptical analyses serve as a healthy reminder that extraordinary testimony can sometimes have less extraordinary explanations, and that investigators must rule out all mundane possibilities. In the case of Tehran 1976, skeptics feel they have shown possible alternatives, whereas proponents feel the skeptics’ scenario is too contrived to account for all that happened. The dialogue between these viewpoints continues, illustrating why the case remains a fascinating puzzle.

Unresolved Questions

Despite decades of analysis and debate, the 1976 Tehran UFO incident leaves a number of unresolved questions. These lingering mysteries keep the case open to interpretation and further inquiry:

• What Exactly Was the Primary Object? – The fundamental question remains: What was the brilliant UFO that hovered over Tehran and outmaneuvered jets? No conventional aircraft or known natural phenomenon fits its behavior and description. It had intense, rapidly strobing multicolored lights in a rectangular array[15], could accelerate instantaneously, and possibly emitted smaller craft. Was it an advanced human-made vehicle (for example, a secret technology or drone being tested)? Given the era and location, it’s unlikely – no nation had demonstrated capabilities remotely like that. The extraterrestrial hypothesis naturally comes up: an alien craft. Iranian generals like Jafari later openly speculated it was “not from Earth”[65]. Yet there’s no direct evidence for that either, beyond the process of elimination. The object’s identity thus remains unknown: UFO in the truest sense.
• What Disabled the F-4s’ Equipment? – One of the most striking aspects was the loss of communications and instrumentation on the F-4s at critical moments[11][19]. What could cause such targeted, temporary failures? If it was the object emitting some kind of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or jamming signal, that implies a technology specifically defensive in nature (shutting down attackers’ electronics). Could a natural cause be at play? (For instance, some have wondered if a freak electrical interference like a massive static discharge or ionospheric disturbance could disable a plane’s systems – but doing so precisely when intercepting a UFO and then stopping is an awfully big coincidence.) If it was internal failure, why did it coincide with the UFO’s proximity? This question ties directly to the object’s nature – if we answer one, we answer the other. As of now, we don’t definitively know if the jets’ systems failed due to a high-powered directed energy from the object, or due to mundane glitches exacerbated by stress and perhaps mis-reading of instruments.
• What Was the Second “Missile-like” Object? – Jafari’s attempt to fire a missile was prompted by a smaller object rushing at him[17]. This object then maneuvered behind him and rejoined the larger craft. If the larger UFO was a craft, was this its drone or probe? Or was Jafari seeing a meteor or optical illusion? The coordination (coming out of the UFO and returning to it) suggests intelligent control rather than random natural phenomena. But without any physical evidence, we are left wondering if it was truly a solid craft or some energy/plasma phenomenon. This is unresolved in official records; we have only Jafari’s account and the DIA summary which treated it as a real solid “second object”[17]. No further data (like debris or photos) exist for this smaller object.
• What Landed (or appeared to land) on the Ground? – The case of the descending object that “gently landed” and lit up a large area remains puzzling[23]. The helicopter search team found no burn marks or traces on the ground, despite the glow observed. They did find a beeping transponder, but that seems more like a decoy (and indeed turned out to be unrelated hardware)[32]. Did the UFO actually land and then take off again silently before dawn, or did it only simulate a landing? The Iranian investigators even checked for radiation, implying they considered something may have touched down[33]. If an extraterrestrial craft landed and left, one might expect some trace (radiation, imprints, increased background readings) – apparently nothing conclusive was found or at least reported. The locals’ account of light and noise is consistent with either a meteor explosion or a brief landing/take-off event. To this day, we don’t know what – if anything – physically came to rest in that dry lake bed. It’s a gap in the story.
• Were There Radar Recordings? – The F-4’s onboard radar clearly tracked the object for some time[14]. Also, Tehran’s air traffic control radar possibly picked up returns (the tower personnel did pick up the final cylinder object on radar after being told where to look[65]). A big unanswered question: Do radar scope photographs or data tapes exist? If they were recorded and stored, they have not been made public. Such data could greatly help confirm speeds, distances, and reality of the object. Some sources claim that U.S. DSP satellite data recorded an infrared event over Tehran that night (which, if true, indicates a genuine thermal source in the sky)[80]. Specifically, two U.S. defense contractors (Lee Graham and Ron Regehr) reportedly analyzed early-warning satellite logs and found a detection coinciding with the incident[80]. If the U.S. early-warning satellite did detect something (like a heat bloom or missile-like signature with no known launch), that’s a huge clue – but official confirmation of that remains lacking in declassified files. Without primary radar or satellite data being released, the case rests largely on human reports and written summaries.
• Why No Follow-up Information? – The DIA report ends by saying “More information will be forwarded when it becomes available”[36]. But according to researchers, no subsequent report has surfaced. Did the Iranian Air Force or U.S. intelligence continue to investigate quietly? If they did, those records haven’t been declassified or admitted. The NICAP source suggests that a sizable case file existed in Iran[52], which has never seen the light of day. One wonders if somewhere in Iranian archives (or U.S. intelligence archives) there are follow-up analyses: perhaps of the F-4’s instrument logs, or interviews with the crew, or a final assessment of probable cause. The lack of additional official commentary is itself an unresolved aspect – it’s as if the incident was reported and then everyone moved on, at least on the surface.
• Could Multiple Ordinary Causes Together Explain It? – The skeptical scenario posits that a combination of Jupiter + meteors + malfunction + beacon could explain nearly everything. The unresolved question here is: is it plausible that all these coincidental factors occurred in one night to create this “perfect storm” of a UFO event? Statistically it’s possible, but it would be a rare convergence. We lack definitive proof to rule out that scenario, but we also lack proof to fully endorse it. For many, the odds of so many coincidences lining up are hard to swallow, thus keeping open the question of whether a single extraordinary cause (like one actual UFO craft) is a simpler explanation of the whole narrative.
• Where is the Physical Evidence? – As with all UFO cases, the absence of a tangible artifact keeps the case unresolved. If only that second object had hit Jafari’s plane (not that we wish that!) or the “landed” object stayed till morning, something concrete might have been recovered. With nothing to test or hold, official science has little to go on. This absence of physical evidence means the Tehran incident, impressive as it is, remains an observational case rather than a material one. That leaves room for doubt and conjecture.

Each of these questions represents a fork in the road of explanation. Depending which way one leans, the Tehran incident can seem nearly solved (if you accept the concatenation of mundane factors theory) or profoundly mysterious (if you lean toward the single exotic craft theory). What’s clear is that none of the prosaic explanations fully account for all witnessed aspects, and conversely, none of the extraordinary explanations have been able to provide independent proof either.

Thus, key questions – the nature of the UFO, how it disabled jets, what fell from it, and what data exists – remain unanswered in official terms. The case remains open in the Project Blue Book sense (even though Blue Book was closed, one might label Tehran 1976 as “unexplained”). It stands as a challenge: something happened for which we do not yet have a universally accepted explanation. Until new evidence emerges (for example, if Iran were to declassify more files or if an eyewitness comes forward with new information), these unresolved questions will continue to prompt curiosity and speculation.

Impact and Legacy

The 1976 Tehran UFO incident has had a lasting impact on UFO studies, defense policy considerations, and public perception of the UFO/UAP phenomenon. In hindsight, its legacy can be observed in several areas:

• A “Benchmark” Case for UFO Evidence: The Tehran encounter quickly entered the pantheon of classic UFO cases cited by researchers as especially compelling. Along with incidents like the 1947 Roswell crash (alleged) and the 1980 Belgian wave, Tehran 1976 is frequently held up as one of the best documented military UFO encounters on record. In the late 1970s and 1980s, when UFO researchers were trying to convince officials to take the subject seriously, they would point to the DIA report on Tehran as evidence that even pilot sightings with radar confirmation exist. For instance, Bruce Maccabee (a naval physicist and ufologist) often referenced Tehran in lectures, highlighting the electromagnetic effects on the F-4s as something “worthy of scientific inquiry”. The case, being international and involving ally intelligence, also showed UFO phenomena weren’t just an American preoccupation – they could appear anywhere, even in the politically tense Middle East.
• Influence on Policy and Defense Thinking: While the Tehran UFO didn’t prompt any overt policy change (no new UFO office was created in 1976 in either Iran or the US), it likely had quiet influence. Within the Iranian Air Force, one imagines it became part of the training lore – e.g., how pilots should react if their instruments fail inexplicably or if they encounter unknown aerial phenomena. For the US, the incident was noted in at least one Defense Intelligence threat assessment. Decades later, when the U.S. Department of Defense established the AATIP (Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program) around 2007 to study modern “UAP” incidents, insiders have said they also reviewed historical cases. The Tehran encounter would have been an obvious case study for any effort looking at UFOs as potential security threats. Indeed, in a 2021 televised interview, a former U.S. Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, mentioned that “there are instances where we don’t have good explanations for some things pilots have seen,” likely alluding to well-known cases like Tehran 1976 among others. Thus, while not officially acknowledged, Tehran’s case lurks in the background of the modern UAP discussions as a precedent: a reminder that highly trained pilots and even generals have encountered the unknown in the skies and reported it.
• Public and Cultural Legacy: General Parviz Jafari’s willingness to come forward later in life gave the case a human face and narrative that resonated with the public. In November 2007, at a high-profile press conference in Washington D.C. organized by investigative journalist Leslie Kean and others, Jafari stood alongside former officials from various countries to urge governments to reveal more about UFOs. He recounted the Tehran incident to the assembled international media, asserting that the craft he chased was under intelligent control and far beyond human technology. His testimony was covered by CNN and other outlets at the time, bringing the case to many who’d never heard of it. The fact that a former Iranian fighter pilot (and general) was essentially saying “UFOs are real and I tried to dogfight one” was striking, and it added credibility to the push for more official transparency. The Tehran case, through Jafari, thus became part of the narrative that convinced some officials that some UFO reports deserved attention rather than ridicule.
• The Black Vault and FOIA Awareness: Interestingly, the Tehran incident also played a role in the genesis of The Black Vault. John Greenewald, Jr., founder of TheBlackVault.com, has said that the very first FOIA request he ever filed as a teenager in 1996 was for the 1976 Iran UFO report[81][82]. He had seen a copy on an early UFO website (CUFON) and wanted to verify its authenticity. When the DIA sent him the document, it was a formative moment that launched his decades-long project of obtaining government files[81][83]. In that sense, the Tehran case directly inspired a new generation of FOIA activism and the creation of an invaluable archive. Greenewald often recounts this story, noting that the Iran incident document will always be special to him, and indeed it’s featured on The Black Vault with his commentary[84]. The case’s legacy, therefore, includes helping spur greater public engagement with FOIA and government transparency on UFO matters.
• Continued Mystery Feeding UFO Research: For UFO researchers, Tehran 1976 remains a case study to test theories. It’s cited in scholarly works and UFOlogical conferences as a challenge to explain. Any theory of UFOs – be it extraterrestrial craft, inter-dimensional phenomena, or secret military tech – should be able to account for Tehran if it wants to be taken seriously. For example, those who hypothesize that UFOs might sometimes be a form of exotic plasma or ball lightning have tried to see if that fits Tehran (mostly it does not, due to the apparent structured behavior). Debunkers use Tehran as a case to sharpen their arguments as well, as we saw with Klass and Dunning. In essence, Tehran serves as a benchmark in the annals of UFO incidents against which new cases or ideas are measured. Its legacy is that of a yardstick: if you can explain Tehran, you can explain a lot of UFOs; if you can’t, then you must admit we have more to learn.
• International Cooperation Aspect: The Tehran case is sometimes brought up in discussions of how nations share information on UFOs. In 1976, a U.S.-allied nation (Iran) had an encounter and promptly informed the U.S. via intelligence channels[35]. This shows that even post-Blue Book, military forces were quietly cooperating on UFO observations at some level. In today’s context, where multiple countries have declassified some UFO files, Tehran stands as an early example of a multi-national awareness of the UFO phenomenon. It might have quietly set a precedent: if such an event happened in another allied country, one would expect a similar diplomatic sharing of data. Indeed, France’s UFO unit (GEIPAN) and others later sometimes communicated with the U.S. or vice versa on notable cases, possibly influenced by cases like Tehran illustrating the value of info-sharing.
• Influence on Science Fiction and Media: While not as famous as Roswell or Rendlesham in pop culture, the Tehran incident has popped up in books, TV recreations, and even sci-fi speculation. It’s referenced in documentaries and some dramatized series about UFOs. The image of a high-speed dogfight between a fighter jet and a UFO over a major city is compelling and cinematic – one can see echoes of it in movies (for instance, scenes in films like Independence Day where modern jets engage UFOs, though not based on Tehran per se, reinforce that this case foreshadowed such scenarios). Some science fiction writers have slyly nodded to Tehran by creating scenarios of electronic shutdown of fighter planes by UFOs. It’s a part of the cultural reservoir of UFO stories that creatives draw from.

In summarizing the legacy: The 1976 Tehran UFO incident remains a cornerstone of ufology and a touchstone in military UFO history. Its influence is evident in how often it’s cited by government reports, journalists, and researchers whenever serious UFO cases are discussed. Unlike many sightings, it involved no obvious hoax, no attribution to mass hysteria, and left behind credible documentation. This has given it a staying power and a degree of respectability. Even hardened skeptics often preface their debunking with “This is one of the better cases, but I think…”.

From inspiring FOIA requests to being used in arguments for greater UFO investigation, Tehran 1976’s impact is undeniable. It has kept the conversation about UFOs grounded (no pun intended) in concrete terms: radar readings, military memos, pilot testimonies. For the UFO subject, often plagued by lack of evidence, such cases are golden. And for policy makers, it’s a reminder that unidentified aerial encounters with potential flight safety and security implications have happened before – so as we grapple with modern UAP reports, we should perhaps keep the lessons of Tehran in mind.

Conclusion

The 1976 Tehran UFO incident stands as a remarkable and enduring mystery at the intersection of military aviation and the unknown. In the predawn hours of September 19, 1976, what began as reports of a strange light in the sky escalated into a high-stakes encounter between Iran’s air force and an object (or objects) exhibiting capabilities far beyond conventional technology. Two F-4 Phantom II jets were engaged, multiple bright UFOs were observed, aircraft systems failed in unsettling ways, and a luminous object seemingly touched down only to vanish without a trace. All of this was meticulously documented in U.S. intelligence reports and later corroborated by the firsthand testimony of pilots and officials.

On the one hand, the case produced compelling evidence: credible eyewitnesses (including a General and seasoned aircrews), radar confirmation of a solid object, and official analyses deeming it a “classic” UFO case that met all criteria for validity[42][47]. The fact that these events prompted serious discussion at high levels – with the incident report reaching the White House and CIA – indicates it was not easily dismissible. Even decades later, the Tehran incident is often highlighted as prima facie evidence that some UFOs exhibit physical reality and interact with our technology in extraordinary ways.

On the other hand, skeptics have shown that there are potential conventional explanations for many pieces of the story: a bright planet, a coincidental avionics failure, meteors and malfunctioning beacons can create confusion that might be stitched into a UFO narrative. They argue that no alien craft is required to explain Tehran – just an unfortunate convergence of normal events and human misperceptions[75][78]. Yet, even the skeptics acknowledge that Tehran is not an open-and-shut case of misidentification; it raises tough questions about what truly happened.

Thus, we are left with a case that is neither fully confirmed as an extraterrestrial encounter nor satisfactorily explained away. It resides in the gray space of the unexplained, where both believers and skeptics find material to support their views. Importantly, the Tehran incident underscores why neutrality and open-mindedness are vital when examining UFO reports. The Iranian pilots and controllers experienced something very real to them – something that to this day has no official explanation. As responsible analysts, we neither want to sensationalize their experience as an “alien attack” without proof, nor dismiss it as “pilot error” without accounting for all the data. The Tehran case asks us to follow the facts, and the facts indeed are puzzling.

In conclusion, The 1976 Tehran UFO Incident remains a fascinating case study. It has enriched the public record with detailed documentation of a UFO encounter, and it challenges us to explain events at the edge of our understanding. The incident’s legacy continues as a reminder that our skies sometimes host mysteries we have yet to unravel. Whether one leans toward a prosaic explanation or entertains the extraterrestrial possibility, Tehran 1976 encourages ongoing scrutiny. As our technology and awareness improve (for instance, modern sensor systems or declassified archives in the future), perhaps one day we will shed more light on what really happened over Iran on that starry September night. Until then, the Tehran UFO incident will remain a touchstone in the UFO debate – a documented encounter scrutinized again and again, as we seek to learn whatever it can teach us about the unknown.

Citations and Sources

• Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Intelligence Report on UFO Sighting in Iran, 19 Sept 1976 – Declassified cable detailing the incident (original FOIA release)[5][11][15]. Available via The Black Vault FOIA archive and NICAP.
• DIA “Defense Information Report Evaluation” Form – DIA analyst’s assessment attached to the Iran incident report, with remarks calling it a “classic” UFO case[42][47] (The Black Vault / NICAP).
• NSA Memorandum by Capt. Henry S. Shields, Oct 1978 – Summarizes the Tehran incident for USAF Security Service; originally classified Confidential, later released (referenced in The Black Vault)[50][3].
• Iranian Air Force Command Post log (as recounted by IIAF sources) – Details General Yousefi’s involvement and the scramble order[4][85] (IIAF.net “Tehran Dogfight Incident”).
• Witness Testimonies: Interview and statements by Maj. Parviz Jafari (IIAF, ret.) – e.g. Leslie Kean’s UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record (2010) pp. 63–64[86]; National Press Club Conference (Nov 2007) coverage[65].
• Martin Bridgstock (2009) and Philip Klass analyses – Skeptical perspectives explaining the incident via astronomical and technical factors[72][77]. See Beyond Belief (Bridgstock) and Skeptical Inquirer
• Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast #315: “The Tehran 1976 UFO” (2012) – Critical review of the case highlighting meteor showers, transponder find, and coincidences[78][79].
• International UFO Reporter (IUR) 1, No. 1 (1977) – Early account of the incident, noting distribution list and queries to U.S. officials[35][63].
• Barry Greenwood & Lawrence Fawcett, Clear Intent (1984) – Book that reproduces and discusses the Tehran incident documents (referred to on NICAP)[52].
• The Black Vault – John Greenewald’s archive featuring the 1976 Iran incident case file and original documents (DIA report PDF, NSA pages)[84][39].
• NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) – Web archive “Tehran, Iran F-4 Incident” (Francis Ridge) providing the full text of the DIA report and evaluation[37][29][42].
• Media articles: The Guardian – “Top 10 UFO sightings” (June 21, 2013) – lists Tehran incident at #10[64]; Daily Telegraph – “UFO Files: top 10 UFO sightings” (2009) – includes Tehran (archived).
• Enigma Labs case profile: “Tehran Incident” – Modern summary of the case on an online UFO database[66][87].
• Metabunk forum analysis (2021) – In-depth debunking discussion with translations of Iranian pilot communications and critique of Dunning’s points[88][55].
• Wikimedia Commons – U.S. Air Force Security Service bulletin pages (1978) by Capt. Shields summarizing the case (images labeled “Tehran UFO 1976, page 1-3”).

All source documents retrieved via The Black Vault FOIA Archive, NICAP, NSA archives, and reputable publications as cited above. These provide a comprehensive factual basis for the Tehran UFO incident, allowing interested readers to review the original reports and analyses that underpin this article.

[1] [2] [13] [16] [32] [51] [57] [58] [59] [70] [72] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [86] 1976 Tehran UFO incident – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

[3] [39] [46] [50] [84] The “1976 Iran Incident” – The Black Vault Case Files

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-1976-iran-incident-ufo-encounter-over-tehran-iran/

[4] [6] [7] [8] [34] [53] [80] [85] Tehran Dogfight Incident – IIAF

http://www.iiaf.net/tehran-dogfight-incident/

[5] [9] [10] [11] [12] [14] [15] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [33] [36] [37] [38] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [47] [48] [49] [52] Tehran, Iran/ F-4 Incident

https://web.archive.org/web/20060206175522/http://www.nicap.org/tehran1.htm

[35] [61] [62] [63] [67] [68] [69] [71] nsa.gov

https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf

[54] Incident in Tehran | Futurism – Vocal Media

https://vocal.media/futurism/incident-in-tehran

[55] [56] [74] [88] The 1976 Iran F4 UAP/UFO case | Metabunk

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-1976-iran-f4-uap-ufo-case.12965/

[60] Parviz Jafari – NOUFORS Home Page

http://noufors.com/Parviz_Jafari.html

[64] [65] Top 10 UFO sightings: from Roswell to a pub in Berkshire | UFOs | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/jun/21/top-10-ufo-sightings-roswell-berkshire-files

[66] [87] Tehran Incident – Enigma Labs

https://enigmalabs.io/library/931061e0-3eb3-497f-8535-a62aea968217

[73] The Tehran 1976 UFO – Skeptoid Podcast

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/315

[81] [82] [83] Inside the Black Vault – Columbia Journalism Review

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/black-vault-foia-john-greenewald.php

The post The Vault Files: 1976 Iran Incident first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post The Vault Files: 1976 Iran Incident appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Document Archive

 Project Blue Book: Artesia, New Mexico — 16 January 1952 [15 Pages, 2.3MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.28 MB]

The post Project Blue Book: Artesia, New Mexico — 16 January 1952 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Project Blue Book: Artesia, New Mexico — 16 January 1952 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

A report of a UFO was received from Mr. Dale F. Spaur, Badge #15, Portage County Sheriff’s Office, Ravenna, Ohio., 17 Apr 66. Sighting between 0300 and 0600 hours. “First sighted in Ravenna, Ohio along Routes 224 – 44, followed object to Conway, Pa., for about 80 miles. Object seemed to be taking off from ground, oblong shaped, with antenna projecting from it. There were no colored lights only a very bright silvery radiance. Object flying about 500 feet over vehicle. It would slow down in speed and then go very fast. The glow from object was so bright it blinded driver of vehicle. Object was flying due east. This has witnessed by people along the route between Ravenna, Ohio and Conway, Pa. There were three (3) men from sheriff’s office and two (2) patrol cars that followed object along this route.”

The case file is below, complete with numerous documents and supporting records. There are also many newspaper articles that were archived.

Document Archive

Project Blue Book: Ravenna, Mantua, Ohio — April 17, 1966 [90 Pages, 20.2MB]

The post Project Blue Book: Ravenna, Mantua, Ohio — April 17, 1966 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Project Blue Book: Ravenna, Mantua, Ohio — April 17, 1966 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

For twenty-two years, from 1947 – 1969, the United States Air Force ran a trifecta of UFO research programs known as Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book. The public is most familiar with the latter of the three, undoubtedly due to the success of a History Channel series by the same name. However, lesser known to non-UFO-aficionados, is why those studies ended. That was due to a near fifteen-hundred page report generated by what was known as the Condon Committee, which convened from 1966-1968 at the University of Colorado, to evaluate whether the further study of UFOs was worth it. Spoiler alert: they concluded UFOs were not worth the time. However, something strange has happened to that report over the years. A chunk of it went missing within the main government agency that disseminates it.

This is the story…

—–
SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL TO MAKE LIVE STREAMS LIKE THIS POSSIBLE: http://www.patreon.com/theblackvault
—–

Additional details (original article) is at: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/astronaut-ufo-sightings-mysteriously-removed-from-government-ufo-study-here-they-are/

The link above also contained the original Condon report documents, along with a .pdf of only the missing pages.

WATCH the Nimitz Encounters film by Dave Beaty. HIGHLY recommended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9NoKp8EnE

The post Astronaut UFO Sightings Mysteriously Removed from Government UFO Study; Here They Are first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Astronaut UFO Sightings Mysteriously Removed from Government UFO Study; Here They Are appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

“I would say remain skeptical. Healthy skepticism is very important, in fact it’s imperative. In fact, in my job as an intelligence officer, I was paid to be skeptical. I think you should always question all the information that comes before you by anybody who says anything, and I think that’s true not just with people like me, I think it’s true with government, religion and everything in between. “
–Mr. Luis Elizondo, 2018 International UFO Congress Recorded Testimony

Table of Contents

• Background
• Department of Defense Denial
• The National Security Agency’s Intellipedia Denial
• The Resignation Letter and Declassification Efforts Denial
• The Navy Denials
• The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
• My Concerns
• “Declassified” Videos Released
  • “The GIMBAL Video”
  • The NIMITZ Video
  • The GO FAST Video
• The OFFICIAL Line
• George Knapp Story About “Tic Tac UFO Analysis” Document
• Congressional Record Documents Cites AATIP
• The Black Vault Responds to FAQs
  • Comment: You won’t find anything. It’s all classified “Top Secret”
  • Comment: You won’t find anything. The U.S. Military hid it all within Bigelow Aerospace to circumvent the FOIA.
  • Comment: Around the end of April 2018, researchers brought forth the name AATIP was wrong, and it was actually the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP). That is why the AATIP FOIA requests brought up nothing.
• FOIA Request Responses
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
  • Department of Defense (DOD)
  • National Security Agency (NSA)

Background

by John Greenewald, Jr., The Black Vault

On December 16, 2017, Tom Delonge’s To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) released two of three UFO videos that are in their “custody” – stating they were officially declassified by the U.S. Government.

It was also announced these videos were part of the secret UFO Research program known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). This existence was based on the testimony of one of the  To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science team members Mr. Luis Elizondo. According to the website:

“Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East. Most recently, Luis managed the security for certain sensitive portfolios for the US Government as the Director for the National Programs Special Management Staff. For nearly the last decade, Luis also ran a sensitive aerospace threat identification program focusing on unidentified aerial technologies. Luis’ academic background includes Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, with research experience in tropical diseases. Luis is also an inventor who holds several patents.”

When Mr. Elizondo’s inclusion in this project was announced, and his biography above was published (along with the press conference held by Mr. Delonge) I quickly filed multiple FOIA requests for records pertaining to this, “sensitive aerospace threat identification program” as referenced by the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science.

Below, you will find the extensive research done to attempt to confirm the claims made by Mr. Elizondo and the TTSA.

AATIP Timeline

To better illustrate everything we have been told, I put together an extensive timeline on the claims made by the media, Mr. Luis Elizondo, Dr. Hal Puthoff and Senator Harry Reid. I have created a specific page just for this section, since it is incredibly long, and has extensive sources. VISIT THE TIMELINE to see just how much of a mess this entire story is.

[ Back to the Top ]

Department of Defense Denial

At the time of the original TTSA press conference, and the filing of my FOIA Request, the full name of Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program was not published, but rather, it was only referenced as the, “sensitive aerospace threat identification program” on the website, and the “DOD Aerospace Threat Program” by media outlets such as the Huffington Post.  Therefore, in my request, I asked for the following:

“I respectfully request a copy of records, electronic or otherwise, of the following: all documents pertaining to the outline, mission statement, objectives, etc of the DOD Aerospace Threat Program. Please note: this may not be the exact, title, but is derived from the testimony of Mr. Luis Elizondo, former DOD employee. According to the Huffington Post (as published here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fmr-manager-of-dod-aerospace-threat-program-ufos_us_59de2f4be4b0b992a8214874 )”

You will notice that to circumvent any word games by the DoD, I stated, “Please note: this may not be the exact, title, but is derived from the testimony of Mr. Luis Elizondo, former DOD employee.”  In other words, even though I knew I was probably slightly off on the title, I gave them DOD personnel testimony and a link to what the program was. That way, there was no way they could plead ignorance that I was “not specific enough.”

On November 27, 2017, the DOD responded with a “no records” determination, as seen in the letter to the right.

I have appealed the “no records” response immediately after receiving the denial, and in March of 2019, I was GRANTED the appeal. The letter sent to me on March 18, 2019, is below.

I was told they were going to conduct another search, and I would receive another response. Within TWO DAYS (after an appeal that took well over a year to grant), I received a strange response that only deepens the mystery.

“The National Programs and Policy Support (NPPS) Office for the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), a component of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OS D), advised that a search for records responsive to this request was not conducted. The Director, NPPS, stated that Mr. Luis Elizondo was a DOD employee who resigned on/or about October 10, 2017. NPPS has no information regarding Mr. Elizondo’s claim to have been the Director of Programs to investigate Unidentified Aerial Threats for OSD.”

So, in other words, the Department of Defense continues (as of March 2019) to deny claims by Mr. Elizondo that there is any information at their office that proves there was investigation into “unidentified aerial threats” at OSD.

In addition, the DOD continues to deny that Mr. Elizondo had any “responsibilities” within the AATIP program. That is outlined extensively here.

I have filed many more FOIA requests — but something does not seem to add up when it comes to connecting official documentation and the story that we have been fed. There is much more below.

[ Back to the Top ]

The National Security Agency’s Intellipedia Denial Acknowledgement

Another FOIA request I filed, which received a final response on 8 January 2018, was to the National Security Agency (NSA). In this specific request, I asked for any Intellipedia references to this program (and I termed it: “Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program” and filed a second request with “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” since the media reported both names.

Intellipedia is an online system for collaborative data sharing used by the United States Intelligence Community (IC). Essentially, it is like Wikipedia for the Intelligence Community (IC). Within the three separate Intellipedia databases, you will find, literally, millions of pages on all sorts of material, classified and unclassified (depending on which version of Intellipedia you are using). When I file my requests for Intellipedia entries, I request searches of all three.  I also request a search of the entries for keywords, so possibly a term may not have a specific “entry” page, but maybe the program itself is mentioned on a different entry.  I try to cover all my bases.

On 8 January 2018, the NSA told me that there were “no records” responsive to my request, which means, out of the  millions of pages within the entire Intellipedia collection, there was not a single reference to the program “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (or the alternative “Aviation”) at this time.   In addition, I also filed a request on May 2, 2018, for Intellipedia entries pertaining to the “Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP)” This is the name that is rumored to either be the precursor project that ultimately was renamed and became AATIP, or it could also be the larger project that AATIP was born out of.  Regardless of what the origin is, the NSA also gave a  “no records” response on this project name, and the fact there are zero references to it.

However, in September of 2018, I made a discovery that the Intellipedia page for Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) was updated to include an AATIP reference. My specific request (as noted by the FOIA response letter at the end of the .pdf) was seeking entries that mention Bigelow Aerospace. What’s odd, is this request was filed around the same day as the one for AATIP above, and it came up empty. So, therefore, the updates on this UFO page can be determined to have occurred between January 8, 2018 and September 12, 2018, when the newly released entry was printed and released to me. Therefore, we can conclude, my original request yielded a “no records” response because there was nothing at that time, so they closed the case on January 8th. However, they probably found responsive records on my Bigelow Aerospace request, which put this case in a different queue for processing. Once processed, Intellipedia was updated to include an AATIP reference, and voila, it came up as one of the responsive documents.

Now, as you can see, AATIP was briefly outlined on the UFO page. The pertinent text reads the following:

You will note there were also references cited, which include the following:

What is the blacked out information? Exemption (b)(3) is an exemption wherein the information withheld is done so because it is exempted by a statute. In this case, it is Public Law 86-36: National Security Agency Act of 1959. It’s possible the information below references the NSA employee name who wrote the citation, or other identifying mark, but it is redacted to protect identities of NSA personnel. This is common.

Now, back to the information. What does it all mean? Well, I will point out a few things that I feel are worthy:

1. The entire entry is designated with (U) markings. This notes that the information contained in each paragraph is UNCLASSIFIED in their entirety. There have been many debates on how secret this project really was, and although I have no doubts that the project had classified aspects, this does support the statement by Senator Harry Reid that about 80% of information related to AATIP is unclassified.  I believe this fact shows that although this program was important, the revelations it made may not have been as extraordinary as some want us to believe.  Anything found of an extraordinary nature (alien/highly advanced foreign technology/etc.) would likely be heavily classified.
2. AATIP did not appear in Intellipedia until after the NY Times published their story.   This is interesting, because Intellipedia is incredibly large, and holds millions of pages on intelligence related projects, operations, pertinent references, etc. from the past and present. As someone who has arguably filed more Intellipedia related requests than any other researcher, that is incredibly strange. Anything of note to the intelligence community, classified or not, usually is in the Intellipedia system somewhere. However, AATIP never was until the “last modified date” shows, 22 December 2017. Based on this fact, I believe the NSA now made an error during the processing of my request, as I asked for not only all entries by that name, but also all entries that come up within the search engine. I believe the latter part of the request was ignored.   Despite that error, this also clearly shows that AATIP did not appear in Intellipedia until 22 December 2017, the question remains, why?Some have argued in the past that AATIP was “too classified” to appear in Intellipedia, or the NSA lied to me when I got the original “no records” response. When classified pages are found during searches, for example, many of the Edward Snowden revelations (like  Wrangler), the NSA will acknowledge they are there, but exempts them from release. Another example, is my request on  Echelon.  This specific request may have entered the realm of still heavily classified to the point they can’t even admit it’s there, and they gave me a GLOMAR response (“can neither confirm nor deny”). My point with these examples, is that the possible explanation that it is “too classified” or “still classified” or they “are lying” just does not fit a provable track record relating to some of the most classified topics within the intelligence community. We can, in my mind, put that argument to rest.
3. Not a single, non-public, resource was used or cited. As an investigator, this is extremely unfortunate. One of the main reasons I use the Intellipedia system, and request the entries I have, is this particular section which appear in most Intellipedia entries. References often (not always, but often) refer to internal reports, regulations and other resources that serve as leads for other FOIA requests. However, the author just based their information off of the newspapers that reported on AATIP. Why is that? It is unclear.

[ Back to the Top ]

The Resignation Letter and Declassification Efforts Denial

On February 12, 2018, the Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff office, in FOIA Case 18-F-0324, gave another rather odd  “no records response” to a request which had multiple parts.

Specifically, I requested:

1) The resignation letter of Mr. Luis Elizondo, DoD personnel who played a role in The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.
2) Any/all responses by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, or any other DoD official to Mr. Elizondo regarding his resignation.
3) Any/all letters, memos, recommendations, email, etc. sent from Mr. Elizondo, to any DoD official, regarding the declassification or public release of videos, as obtained by the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program.
4) Any/all response to Mr. Elizondo, and his effort to get videos or material evidence in the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program released to the public.

Although I have an open appeal on the above with the DOD, it is noted they just wanted to forward my request to the Defense Intelligence Agency instead.  However, due to the fact that Mr. Elizondo stated clearly he worked within OSD (not DIA), and the NY TIMES among many other news outlets cited Mr. Elizondo’s resignation letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, at least that portion of my request would be at the office that just gave the “no records” response.

(It should be noted that the accession of “resignation letters” through the FOIA is contested. It is unclear if a resignation letter would be accessible through the FOIA, or exempt due to it being a letter of “personal nature” and possibly not considered an agency record.   This may explain the “no records” response, if OSD does not consider Mr. Elizondo’s “resignation letter” an agency document. What I have been unable to DEFINITIVELY address, whether by case law or past FOIA request, is whether or not an agency would issue a “no records” response, even though the resignation letter exists, but it is not considered an agency record,  or would they issue a denial on the records, acknowledging they are there, but exempt due to FOIA exemption (b)(6). I have found evidence to the latter in response to a FOIA request for the alleged “resignation letter” that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had potentially drafted.  If there was a resignation letter, the Department of Justice decided that they would neither confirm nor deny it even existed, based on the (b)(6) “privacy information” FOIA exemption.  This was the letter sent to the Huffington Post in FOIA Case DOJ-2017-005525.)

[ Back to the Top ]

The Navy Denials

Another denial from the military came in that contradicts the story and testimony that the public is being given.

In one interview given by Mr. Elizondo, he states the following:

“AATIP receives the cases from various different channels, so where our office sat at the top of the office of the secretary of defense, we had multiple avenues of approach, so you had in some cases reporting would come up through navy channels, in other cases it would come up through air force channels, in other cases it would come through the intelligence community, and as the focal point, if you will, for this capability, all roads I guess lead to Rome in this particular case. All roads led to our office regarding the phenomena.” 

Based on this testimony, I filed a FOIA request to the Department of the Navy on March 14, 2018, which asked for the following:

1) All photographs / videos / reports / letters / memos / etc. that were sent by your agency, to the Office for the Secretary of Defense (OSD) / the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), or to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in regards to the “Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program” or AATIP. It is also referred to as the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” also AATIP.  

2) I also ask that you include all reporting procedures / methods / instructions / manuals / directives etc. that mandate your agency’s personnel to reporting these types of reports under the AATIP program. According to Mr. Elizondo, there were protocols in place that if unidentified objects were seen, they were to be reported to his office, as he stated above. Therefore, a reporting procedure, of some kind, must exist.

The verbatim testimony was also included in the FOIA request for reference.

The request was filed and given FOIA Case Number DON-NAVY-2018-005476. In the course of processing my request, the Navy searched the Naval Air System Command (NAVAIR), Naval Air Forces Pacific (AIRPAC) and the Chief of Naval Operations Office of Information Warfar (OPNAV N2/N6) for responsive records.

All offices searched produced ZERO results and I was given another  “no records” response by a key agency mentioned by Mr. Elizondo.

I appealed the “no records” response, and it was denied. I filed again in September of 2019 based on new Navy statements, however that, too, was denied. In January 2020, I appealed that determination, and it is currently awaiting a final response.

[ Back to the Top ]

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

It should be noted in addition to the above, that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is said to be the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for documents released on AATIP.  Therefore, since day 1 of the announcement of this, I have had multiple FOIA requests open to the agency. I asked for, but lost, a request for expediting the request. Although I appealed the decision, I lost that too. In January of 2019, the first document was released. Here is some background:

In July of 2018, Mr. George Knapp released a leaked version of the 38 reports created under The Aerospace Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). On this, were various, highly scientific and technical reports, by various authors, regarding fusion, advanced propulsion etc. The exact role they played in the AATIP program, is unclear.

On January 16, 2019, the DIA responded to my FOIA request for the letter sent to Congress (explained in more detail below) with a list of the reports created under AATIP. This was my release, sent to me by the DIA, dated January 16, 2019:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.91 MB]

[ Back to the Top ]

My Concerns

There are many things that actually concern me over the discovery of this program, which I feel will need to be addressed in the coming weeks and months (now YEARS?). Let me preface my concerns, by giving my thanks and compliments to Tom Delonge, the team at the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, Mr. Elizondo, and all others involved for getting this information out.  My concerns are not personal in nature, and should not take away from the work the aforementioned are doing.  But, I feel this should be addressed in order to put some concerns to rest.

1. The media, and even much of the UFO Community, is mis-representing this story as the “first time” the government has conducted UFO Research since Project Blue Book closed in 1969.  This, for a fact, is not true.  For those who follow The Black Vault, you will that more than a decade, I lectured about, talked about, and profiled a Air Force Manual (that same agency which has denied UFO interest for so long) that specifically talked about UFO reporting procedures.  When procedures exist to report something, it is probably safe to assume those reports actually go somewhere and mean something, therefore some kind of UFO Research project was underway. (See: Air Force Instruction 10-206 – The Vanishing UFO Regulation) You will notice from the above page, that although I spoke about this publication for roughly a decade, and even put it into some UFO Documentaries I produced on History Channel, it was mysteriously removed when the Huffington Post was going to profile it.  A fascinating story, but proof a UFO Research program of some kind was well underway, even before the “DOD Aerospace Threat Program” allegedly even existed. Was there synergy between the two programs? Only time will tell, but that’s another story in itself. That said, this “new” program we are all hearing about sounds admittedly larger in scale than the Air Force manual reference, but one aspect on why I don’t feel it’s the start of “disclosure” is the testimony of Luis Elizondo himself. He said that no one was “taking the threat seriously”, which played a role in his resignation and exit from the DOD. I can respect that, but does it show that no one else involved (bit of an assumption here) saw anything worthy of investigation? I would feel if this really was “disclosure” — and the government was starting to come clean — we would have much more evidence, a more serious approach, and the government would stay quiet and let the information drip out. However, on the contrary, they responded to some media outlets saying yes, it existed, but it didn’t find anything worthy of additional dollars or time/effort.
2. Robert Bigelow was given the task to house recovered alloy and material?  According to the NY TIMES article:

   “Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena. Researchers also studied people who said they had experienced physical effects from encounters with the objects and examined them for any physiological changes. In addition, researchers spoke to military service members who had reported sightings of strange aircraft.”

   Well, that’s just downright intriguing, right? I mean, captured alloys and material from UAPs/UFOs? That has to be alien, right? This rivals the Roswell debris going to Hangar 18, right?  Probably not — here’s why:

   Why would the government trust “alien technology” (I know I am taking a leap assuming that is what may be hidden) to a corporate entity aiming to profit in the privatization of space travel and space exploration? It would seem that is a rather large secret to be kept – and although corporations are trusted with many high level security issues and the specs to some of our most advanced pieces of technology, I would think the U.S. may keep that material a bit close to their chest.

   Because, if this was proof, the smoking gun, or “alien technology” that could not be refuted – why would Mr. Bigelow keep that a secret? He obviously knew/knows Elizondo was going to go public — and when he did — people would start asking questions. So, why wouldn’t he join hands and say this is what we have (or this is what we DON’T have)?

   What is more likely, is that Mr. Bigelow was able to do a “privatized” and modern Project Moon Dust, wherein he was on the receiving end of possible recovered Chinese, Russian, Iranian etc. technology.  Project Moon Dust captured space debris during the space race, seeking to back engineer more advanced, captured, technology from a foreign entity.  It’s possible, and probable, that this is simply a modern day version of that.

   It seems to me there is something suspicious and/or shady at the root of this. I feel with Bigelow’s personal interest and fascination with this, and the fact he has no problem touting his belief that aliens may be walking among us, he would let it spill that alien technology exists — and he had it.  Of course, many will cite his security clearance and access as something that would stop him from talking about it. Maybe it would. But likely, there are other employees, or people close to this, that would talk about it. However, no one ever has. Mr. Elizondo, only eluded to it on Tucker Carlson (Fox News), which has spurred much controversy. However, no additional details or evidence has ever been offered since that interview.

3. The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program probably didn’t find anything.   I think it is wonderful that Mr. Elizondo has come out with this information, and I respect his contribution.  However, according to his own testimony, I think we can determine that there was likely nothing found by the program he said he headed, simply because the DOD found zero interest in continuing the program. Here is why: On the surface, this looks and sounds amazing.  But when dissecting what was given to us — we are still lacking any answers whatsoever. The government admitted the secret program is real — that sounds groundbreaking — but they also said in the same breath they cancelled it after about 5 years. They also maintain it had nothing to do with UAPs/UFOs.Although the NY Times said that members of the group still continue to investigate the sightings, there is no evidence to that exists.
4. It had a $22 Million dollar budget. $22 Million? Stop and think about how small of a number that really is.  $22 Million divided by 5 years (assuming the longevity is true). That’s $4.4 Million per year. That’s $367,000 per month.  That’s $91,750 per week.  Sounds like a lot — but to U.S. Government standards?  That’s kinda nothing at all. When you look at the project overall, as indicated by the media, the financing was spearheaded by Senator Harry Reid, from Nevada.  As I mentioned above, and according to the NY TIMES, “most of the money” went to Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace. Do you know where Mr. Bigelow resides?  You guessed it, Nevada, Senator Harry Reid’s home state.Out of curiosity, I looked up the donations given to Senator Harry Reid’s campaigns from Mr. Bigelow.  The dollar amount stretches to $10,000 and likely far beyond.

   

   Given this fact, what are we looking at? Senator Harry Reid doesn’t strike me as a UFO aficionado (though claims he has had an “interest” for many years) but he does strike me as someone who loves his constituents that donate the big bucks.  I think it’s a big possibility that this project, with the majority of the money going to Mr. Bigelow in Nevada, spearheaded by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, is nothing more than pork, and not motivated to better humanity, get answers or uncover the truth.  That is NOT a popular statement to make, but I believe there is a lot of evidence to support that if you look at Senator Reid’s NY Magazine Interview and other statement’s he’s made. I will soon be doing a more extensive outline of this.

[ Back to the Top ]

“Declassified” Videos Released

The following were the videos released by the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science on December 16th, 2017, and largely published by the media.  According to Mr. Luis Elizondo, the videos were obtained by the submission of a  DD Form 1910, CLEARANCE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INFORMATION.  It is believed that the “Chain of Custody” documents referenced by the To The Stars Academy is the actual DD Form 1910 filed by Mr. Elizondo.  However, by definition, this is not a “Chain of Custody” record, but rather, simply proof of proper declassification.

An entire breakdown of this process by Mr. Elizondo, as revealed by a FOIA request from The Black Vault, is available here.

The review is then conducted, and a determination can be made.

Here are 18 various DD Form 1910s that I dug up for reference. They are as early as 1989 and stretch all the way through December of 2018.

These are all sourced directly to various military and government (.mil and .gov) sources.  They include the following (in order of the above gallery):

Source: https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/oral_history/OH_Trans_LACEY%20Mary1-16-09.pdf?ver=2017-12-07-093146-747 
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1039679.pdf 
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a640445.pdf 
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a603516.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a603749.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1034560.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a575861.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1036036.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a215200.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608403.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a588078.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a300047.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a318780.pdf
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1043438.pdf
Source: https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/OE/Concept%20of%20Operations%20for%20Military%20ECUs.pdf
Source: https://navysustainability.dodlive.mil/files/2017/03/USS-MONTEREY_SC_CompletePackage.pdf
Source: https://adlnet.gov/uploads/SF298%20Final%20Report%20SenSe.pdf
Source: https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/oral_history/OH_Trans_BUNNBradley9-12-08.pdf?ver=2017-12-07-093136-903

If Mr. Elizondo was part of an ongoing effort to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena as he has stated, and the effort was not cancelled in 2012 as the Government stated, than his filing of the DD Form 1910 was during the time he was investigating the phenomena.  Mr. Elizondo said the Pentagon did not take Unidentified Aerial Phenomena seriously, so this led to Mr. Elizondo’s resignation in October of the same year he secured the release of the videos.  What is strange is that KLAS-TV decided to redact Mr. Elizondo’s name – since it was Mr. Elizondo who has been credited since day one for securing the release of the videos, ie: he filed the DD Form 1910.  In addition, Mr. Elizondo outlined the entire process he undertook, in his February 25, 2018, interview with Mr. George Knapp on Coast to Coast AM. This interview is what motivated me to file a FOIA request, specifically for these document(s). So, why is this redacted since it’s already long established public knowledge?

Moving on from that oddity; in section 1, item d, Mr. Elizondo (based on reporting, I will move forward he is the name redacted that filed this document), told DOPSR that the subject matter of the three videos (referenced in item b) were, “UAV, Balloons and other UAS.”  UAV, to the DOD, means “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” or better known as a drone.  Balloons are just that, but a really bizarre way to describe these videos of “unidentified aerial phenomena.” And lastly UAS, to the DOD, means Unmanned Aircraft System. (Source: DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms).

Why would these descriptions be falsely attributed to the videos when according to Mr. Elizondo, they were “unidentified?” It should be noted, the U.S. Navy agree with Mr. Elizondo, and they went on the record with The Black Vault who broke the story that went viral that the three videos were considered “unidentified.”

Therefore, it’s misleading as they can not be UAVs, UASs or balloons. Did he fabricate this line just to get the form pushed through? Mr. Elizondo decided to address this in his interview with Open Minds for the UFO Congress, Mr. Elizondo said:

“No, there was no trick and there was no false pretense. The videos were released in accordance with the strict manner that DOD prescribes to DOD manuals and regulations involving the release of information. It went through the official DOPSR process and then furthermore an additional step was taken to have the videos reviewed by foreign disclosure representatives. In fact, the most senior foreign disclosure representatives in the department, and ultimately required OCA or original classification authority approval and review to release the video. So in essence, I didn’t release anything, the department of defense released those videos. The documentation is held by the department of defense and the justification for releasing those videos were exactly as stated, and that was to create an unclassified database that people could then access and help us identify the signatures we were seeing.”

He clearly says there was no false pretense, except he led DOPSR to believe that the videos were identified craft, including military drones (UAVs or UASs) or even insinuated they were just balloons.

That leads us to section 3, as filled out presumably by Mr. Elizondo. Section 3 of a DD Form 1910, is a description of why the person is requesting the information to be released. This clues DOPSR into the reasoning and the future use of the material, in order to make the best, and most informed, decision about a release. Mr. Elizondo stated:

“Not applicable. Not for publication. Research and analysis ONLY and info sharing with other USG [U.S. Government] and industry partners for the purposes of developing a database to help identify, analyze and ultimately defeat UAS threats.”

So, in a nutshell, Mr. Elizondo said these videos were for research and analysis ONLY (with emphasis and CAPS on ONLY), and they would only be used by the U.S. Government and their partners, which I take, would mean contractors.  The database portion partially lined up with Mr. Elizondo’s statement to Open Minds (even though he didn’t say it would be for government or contractor use), yet, the rest does not line up all.

In the end, once the videos were “released by the Pentagon”, Mr. Elizondo did not put them to use by the U.S. Government and their partners; but rather, he resigned from the agency only about 6 weeks after DOPSR gave their approval for internal use only. After resignation, he then utilized them in a for-profit venture he is now involved in, known as To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science. There is no database (yet) even though it has been teased by this corporation, but rather, they watermarked the videos, and have largely touted said videos to garner attention for their corporation, a non-government entity, to invite investments into their venture.

It should be noted that although the U.S. government maintains the videos should not have been released; they have blamed the internal process / DOPSR and not Mr. Elizondo for the mistake.

I will let you decide, on whether or not that all constitutes “false pretense” and if the e-mails released after The Black Vault’s FOIA request supports the narrative. DOPSR was given erroneous information, and false descriptions on what they were reviewing, and the DOPSR staff is cleared at the highest levels of secrecy to review information. This is reinforced by their website, showing without question they have “Top Secret” communication methods, obviously detailing, they are cleared at the Top Secret Level:

The above is pointed out, to show that DOPSR would be cleared to receive and review Top Secret information. Multiple sources confirm that DD Form 1910s can be submitted via secure channels, up to and including, Top Secret. Mr. Elizondo has stated that the true description of the videos were withheld from DOPSR because of the secrecy involving the process, which at this point, does not make sense.

“The GIMBAL Video”

According to the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science:

GIMBAL is the first of three US military videos of unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) that has been through the official declassification review process of the United States government and has been approved for public release. This footage, and all official USG footage you will see on TTS Academy’s Community of Interest (COI), comes with essential chain-of-custody documentation validating that it is received in its original and unaltered form and is authentic. The US Department of Defense uses this process in order to meticulously ensure that information and material retain their integrity without revealing sources and methods. This documentation is what sets this footage apart from anything else that has previously made its way to the public domain, by establishing its authenticity and thereby giving it enormous historical significance.

While that fact alone is of historical significance, what this 34 seconds of video provides is remarkable. Several key observations are contained in this one video that may help us collectively better understand the physics and technology being employed. In addition, we hear US fighter pilots struggling to determine the nature of object. Key findings include:

• Low observability in both electro-optical and electromagnetic spectrums.

• No distinguishable flight surfaces.

• Lack of obvious propulsion system.

• Never-before-seen flight capabilities.

• Possible energy or resonance field of unknown nature.

The filename “GIMBAL” seems to be traceable to the unusual maneuvering of the UAP.

[ Back to the Top ]

The NIMITZ Video

According to the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science:

FLIR1 is the second of three US military videos of unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) that has been through the official declassification review process of the United States government and approved for public release. It is the only official footage captured by a US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet present at the 2004 Nimitz incident off the coast of San Diego. Like GIMBAL, this footage comes with crucial chain-of-custody (CoC) documentation because it is a product of US military sensors, which confirms it is original, unaltered, and not computer generated or artificially fabricated. While there have been leaked versions on the internet, the CoC establishes the authenticity and credibility that this version is the original footage taken from one of the most advanced sensor tracking devices in use.

The sensor, a Raytheon AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod, has two imaging modes: mid-wave infrared and visual. It has high resolution and can locate and designate targets at distances exceeding 40 nautical miles. The FLIR1 footage shows what was on display to the fighter pilots in the cockpit of their Super Hornet.  

[ Back to the Top ]

The GO FAST Video

According to the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science:

GO FAST is an authentic DoD video that captures the high-speed flight of an unidentified aircraft at low altitude by a F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIR forward-looking infrared system. While TTSA was the first to obtain a copy, it should be available to any member of the press or public via the Freedom of Information Act.

This video, GO FAST, was captured by a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet using the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pod.  This sensor has two imaging modes – mid-wave infrared and visual.  It has high resolution and can locate and designate targets at distances exceeding 40 nm.  The video imagery represents the image displayed in the cockpit to the pilot and Weapon Systems Operators (WSO).  Major features of the display are shown in Figure 1.

The date, location, and other information has been removed by the originating authority as part of the release approval process.

GO FAST was selected for release, like GIMBAL and FLIR1, after review by multiple government organizations.  The object in this video remains unidentified. 

Based on the above information, I did request numerous documents and videos from various government agencies.  I will be updating this case file as the investigation progresses.

[ Back to the Top ]

The OFFICIAL Line

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Office of Public Affairs

Since nearly day one, a debate has raged on what the name of the “Pentagon’s Secret UFO Study” as touted by the media, really was. There was, for quite some time, a discrepancy on whether it was “Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program” or “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.”  Since the media reported the name both ways, it was a standing debate. To some, this was a frustrating question to ask, but it was one that needed to be answered. As you will see below, a Major from the Pentagon repeatedly stated it was “Aviation”, while on February 12, 2019, I got confirmation from the DIA it was, in fact, “Aerospace,” when AATIP was headed by the DIA.

This will cause some, who were frustrated at the question being asked, to feel vindicated. However, as one question becomes answered, many more arise. It is with this reason alone, that research is key, and questions are crucial to understanding the bigger picture. Blind allegiance to one source of information is the absolute recipe for major let-downs and disaster. I stand by asking that question and pushing for answers, because in the process of doing so, more information comes to light.

Research is sometimes slow and boring. But I ask questions until they are adequately answered. After more than two decades of researching government secrets — I feel that is the only way to do it. That – and I trust no one in the process.

On February 12, 2019, the DIA Public Affairs Office answered multiple questions that I had for clarification, but in the process, brought up some new ones.

• It is now confirmed by the DIA, that the name was, in fact, “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.”
• It is now confirmed by the DIA, that Bigelow Aerospace was the ONLY bidder for the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP) contract, which later became (or is the same) as AATIP. I clarified this statement to ensure I was accurate in reporting this, and the DIA confirmed my follow-up that Bigelow Aerospace was the sole bidder for this contract.
• The DIA was also not aware of any report or study produced, outside the 38 reports listed in the “Attachments” section of the letter to Senator’s John McCain and Jack Reed.  This contradicts multiple statements that there is a 490 page study produced about UFOs.
• It was determined that the approximate 5 year study known as AATIP, was going to be cancelled (or moved out of DIA) about 2 years after it started. In other words, not even half way through it, the DIA was giving up on it.
• I asked if there was any knowledge that the DIA had, if it was moved. They said they had no information after it was ended in 2012 at DIA.
• When asked about UFOs specifically, the answer was about aerial threats and projecting ahead 40 years on what those threats could be. That part is not new, however, it appears the DIA is standing strong that was not a UFO research program, or at least, will not address it.

See below for the questions I originally asked the DIA. Please note – I was in the process of doing a television series (as of February 2019), where I am being asked about AATIP. In regards to question #1 below – I said that question was the “most important.” For well more than a year, I have always said the name discrepancy is NOT the most important issue, so that may be confusing to some. However, I said this was the most important question in this e-mail, due to the fact it was about accuracy in talking about AATIP for the television series. I knew I would not get all the answers I wanted, but I wanted to make sure when referencing AATIP, I did so accurately with the name itself. Plus, it would settle the long standing debate. I am sure some will attack me on that, but wanted to clarify that is not the most important in the overall scope about what AATIP was about, but rather, was the most important framing it around a television interview for accuracy.

The Pentagon

I spoke to the Public Affairs office at the Pentagon many times over the telephone in late December 2017 through the first six months of 2018, specifically with Major Audricia Harris, official spokesperson for the Department of Defense.  I asked for her releasable facts on AATIP to be sent in writing, that way I had a firm confirmation from their side on what the program was (and was not).

Below, you will find the official e-signed response from Major Harris (Please note: I decided to redact the identifying contact information for Major Harris.  Regardless of it being public domain, I did so to stop her from getting flooded with UFO type requests.  She was kind enough to respond to me, as I was working on a television show concept that dealt with this, and therefore my work in television [History Channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, etc.] does put me in a “member of the news media” category. Her email address is not for general public use, so I opted to withhold it here.):

In the above letter, she confirms:

1. The program was cancelled in 2012.
2. The DOD did NOT release the three videos, as said they did by the To the Stars Academy.
3. Funding for AATIP was from a July 2008 Supplementation Appropriations Bill.  This contradicts it was a “black budget” program funded by “black money” as touted by many news articles, including the heading of the original NY Times article (“Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program”). To date, the appropriations bill that can be tied to this has never been found.

These are discrepancies that need to be addressed, by the media, TTSA and maybe the Pentagon itself if the first two stand strong behind their statements.

In addition to the above, on April 10th, 2018, I did share another e-mail exchange with Major Harris.  I chose a few questions which I felt were the most pressing that her side may be able to address.  You will find the letter exchange below.  Again, I opted to remove direct contact information to Major Harris, for obvious reasons. In the text version, I put my questions in blue.  For Major Harris’ responses, I left them black/bold.  The screen shot is also available.

John,

My responses are below:

1) In regards to its mandate that you mention, as outlined in a 2009 letter from Reid to DSD, is this letter/document public? Is there a way to get a copy of this, or would it needed to be obtained under the FOIA?

I do not have a copy of this letter in my possession.

2) There is one man who used to head the program, Mr. Luis Elizondo, who is speaking publicly and received quite a bit of press.  His exact story varies with various news articles, but in short, he claims the program is still ongoing and using funds from other projects.  My concern over this claim, is that it doesn’t quite sound right that there was money taken from line items for one budget, and slid over to continue AATIP.  Do you have any response to his claim that AATIP continues?  (Please note: I understand you already stated it was cancelled, I just had a concern that he continues his claim that it continued well after 2012.)

The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program ended in 2012. It was determined that there were other, higher priority issues that merited funding and it was in the best interest of the DoD to make a change.

3) Mr. Elizondo, and a “public benefit” corporation he is now tied to (trying to raise $50,000,000 to do various projects), has released three videos claiming they were “declassified by the U.S. Government” but I note your statement the “DoD has not released videos related to this program.”

It is assumed that it was either OSD or DIA (possibly NAVY?) that released the videos, but I take from your statement, that would not be true?

According to Mr. Elizondo, he filed a DD Form 1910 for the videos to be released, but will not produce any evidence to prove his claim.  Does this seem accurate to you?  Any information you could give on this, even if you think they are not genuine, would be very helpful.

DD Form 1910 is the form used in requesting review and clearance of DOD information proposed for public release. The Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review(DOPSR) is responsible for managing the Department of Defense security review program, reviewing written materials both for public and controlled release. This includes official government and defense industry work products, as well as materials submitted by cleared or formerly cleared individuals pursuant to their voluntary non-disclosure agreement obligations. DOPSR also coordinates official work products with Defense enterprise stakeholders to ensure that information being released is both accurate and represents the Department’s official position. This organization conducts a security review of products proposed for release – it does not approve the release of DOD information.

4) There was initially a lot of talk in many media outlets about “metal alloys” discovered and sent to Bigelow Aerospace for investigation, but I am getting the feeling the magnitude of this part of the original NY TIMES story has been walked back. This is where most of the rumors preside, as you could imagine. Is there any light that you can shed on the “metals” involved with the AATIP program?

I have no information on this at this time.

5) Last question — which loosely ties to the above. Some media outlets and online blogs are writing the idea that all of AATIP’s material, documents, research etc. was contracted out to Bigelow Aerospace and therefore hiding the entire program from the use of FOIA.  Personally, this also doesn’t seem right to me, since it sounds like Mr. Elizondo led the program through OSD, and had nothing to do with Bigelow. Can you comment on Bigelow Aerospace’s involvement, and was it primarily done at Bigelow? Partially? They had a small involvement?  In short, I am trying to put that controversy to bed, but would appreciate any official address to these points.

I have no information on this at this time. Have you reached out to Bigelow Aerospace?

Sincerely,

Maj. Harris
direct: XXX-XXX-XXXX
mobile: XXX-XXX-XXXX

A few notes here on this exchange.  Although the narrative continues that AATIP ended in 2012, of course, there is a possibility (albeit a small one) that the objectives of AATIP continued under a different name.  Her exact words were, “The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program ended in 2012. It was determined that there were other, higher priority issues that merited funding and it was in the best interest of the DoD to make a change.”  One could argue this is safely worded that AATIP as a name was ended, but another name with the same objective began.  To me, this is very unlikely. The program was not announced until the end of 2017, in fact, there was never even a rumor or a “leak” about it… ever.  So the likelihood they felt the need to make such a change to cover-up AATIP’s existence, 5 years before it was known to the public, seems rather unlikely, but always possible.

Second, Major Harris offers additional details about DD Form 1910s and the DOPSR process. Regardless of Mr. Elizondo filing DD Form 1910s to get these videos “reviewed” or not — to the Pentagon — it’s irrelevant.  The only thing that matters, in this instance, is that the DOD never released the videos.  According to Mr. Elizondo and TTSA — the DOD released the videos.

Third, she recommended reaching out to Bigelow Aerospace, which I have already done.  I tried via telephone, where I was stonewalled and told to email specific questions to the PR personnel. I did that, however, have yet to receive any response whatsoever.

I appreciate her time that she spent answering the above, and as I receive more information that adds to the story, I will post it here.

[ Back to the Top ]

George Knapp Story About “Tic Tac UFO Analysis” Document

On May 18, 2018, investigative journalist George Knapp of CBS Channel 8, Las Vegas, broke a story about a document said to detail the Tic Tac UFO sighting (the same “Tic Tac” video released by TTSA above) and analyzed the importance of the encounter.

According to Mr. Knapp’s story, it states:

Since the Pentagon’s release of three UFO videos, armchair experts have speculated that maybe the objects are birds or balloons or something mundane.

But now, the I-Team has obtained an in-depth report prepared by and for the military, and it analyzes the so-called Tic Tac UFO using the most sophisticated sensor systems in the world.

Over a two-week period in late 2004, an unknown, 45-foot long Tic Tac shaped object played cat and mouse with the U.S. Navy off the coast of California. The mighty U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier, and its support ships including the U.S.S. Princeton, carrying the most sophisticated sensor systems in the world, repeatedly detected recurring glimpses of the Tic Tac but were unable to lock on.

… SNIP …

But in the months since the release, the Pentagon has clammed up. It has declined to release official documents about the Nimitz Tic Tac encounter, or similar incidents.

… SNIP …

Pilots reported a large disturbance just under the surface of the ocean, round and 100 yards across. It appeared as if the Tic Tac was rendezvousing with the underwater object.

Among the key findings in the report — the AAV is not something that belongs to the U.S. or any other nation. It was so advanced, it rendered U.S. capabilities ineffective. It showed velocities far greater than anything known to exist, and it could turn itself invisible, both to radar and the human eye. Essentially, it was undetectable, and unchallenged.

… SNIP …

The report including statements from seven F-18 pilots as well as radar operators on the ships. Despite the seriousness of the encounter, the pilots faced ridicule after their encounters. The Navy’s initial report was buried, not forwarded to command. It was decided the AAV was not a threat.  

Five years later, a more comprehensive assessment was compiled but was never made public and has been seen by few, even inside the Pentagon.

Former intelligence official Chris Mellon opined in the Washington Post that the Pentagon’s unwillingness to discuss these encounters or share information with other military branches is a threat to national security, comparable to when the CIA and FBI failed to share information prior to 9/11

The analysis report is not dated and has no logo, but four separate people who are familiar with its contents confirmed to the I-Team it is the real deal and was written as part of a Pentagon program.

I have used only portions of the article that I feel are relevant here. I invite you all to click on the link above to see the entire breakdown of Mr. Knapp’s story.

The document that was obtained, and released by Mr. Knapp / I-Team, is here:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [8.39 MB]

My analysis on this document is based on my opinion, and I in no way want to insinuate Mr. Knapp has falsified the document or is misleading the public with this story. Rather, I offer my critique in hopes to bring some insight into understanding what this may, or may not, ultimately be.  Mr. Knapp should be commended for his reporting about the UFO phenomenon, and my critique here is solely based on my opinion about this particular document.

Now, that being said, there are some issues with the above story that need to be pointed out.   First and foremost, the document itself does not, in any way, resemble a report prepared by the Pentagon or any branch of the U.S. Military.  Although there are many types of report and briefing formats, and they vary from agency to agency, there are still common characteristics that you will find in documents such as this.

The most obvious, to me, is a lack of any classification stamp or  header/footer. It is noted in Mr. Knapp’s story the document was “unclassified” — however, most “unclassified” documents still contain the identifying marks to stipulate the classification level of the document.  (EXAMPLE #1 | EXAMPLE #2) Of course, there are exceptions and mistakes, but this is a sign it was probably not prepared by the Pentagon, or it would contain such a classification level stamp or mark.

Second, there are no headers, contracts numbers or any cover page. Most, if not all, reports of this nature contain a cover page identifying what the information in the report is, what it refers to, what contract it pertains to, etc. (EXAMPLE #1 | EXAMPLE #2). In these examples cited here, from different time frames and agencies, they both have cover pages and reference pages about what the reports are about. This is another indication this document in question, is not official.

Third, the names are blacked out with the exception of Commander David Fravor.  At first, I noted this as being suspicious, but later got clarification that Mr. Knapp was the one who did the redaction, based on a tweeted comment he posted on Twitter.  Although that explains the discrepancy, it does bring up another fact, and that is, nothing about the document’s release is close to being “official” or “by the book.”  Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), when documents such as these are released, ALL names are redacted/blacked out. This is due to FOIA exemption (b)(6) which stipulates that for privacy reasons, names (and other personally identifiable information) are redacted to ensure their identities remain private. Whomever gave this document to Mr. Knapp, obviously did not care to conceal identities of those mentioned, and I think Mr. Knapp deserves credit for taking the step to ensure these names remain outside the public domain (except Commander Fravor who has gone public). I will note, Mr. Knapp never claimed this was obtained under a FOIA release. However, I note this FOIA exemption because this is a standard rule/practice when agencies release documents, they will follow the same policies and procedures when they proactively release information to the public, but not under the FOIA.  These facts support the document was a “leak” rather than a “release.”

But the same red flags that I have noted above about the exact provenance of the videos released by TTSA, are displayed here. Was this document really written/prepared BY the Pentagon as this news article states? If so, then the circumvention of the review process to get a document in the public domain was skipped, and we are seeing a record that may not be officially in the public domain (yet). In today’s world we live in, it’s news cycle after news cycle of “leak” after “leak” — drip after drip.  The question on whether or not this is a healthy news environment I will leave for a different discussion, but this does make us question who gave it to Mr. Knapp, and if it was prepared by the Pentagon, will there be repercussion for this type of record to be “leaked” to a journalist (regardless of it being “unclassified”) without a proper review?

Further to this point, I feel with the red flags above, along with the fact that we may not see any repercussions as time goes on, there is a large possibility this was not prepared BY the Pentagon, but rather, was possibly sent TO the Pentagon. We can probably assume by a contractor, like BAASS, which is connected to the AATIP program.   This is supported by the style of the report itself, and the footnotes used on the bottom of the record. It’s fairly rare to see non-government sources, especially Wikipedia, which is used quite often as a source. But what is rather even more strange, is AATIP, “Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program,” the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program,” or the “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” (see below) etc.  are not named in the report, AT ALL.

Away from analyzing the record itself, the backstory to it raises some questions that need to be addressed. The CBS 8 / I-Team’s story states it is a “Confidential Report” in the title of the news release yet the body of the story itself says that it is “Unclassified”.  This may be semantics, but since “Confidential” is an actual classification level, it can not be “Confidential” and “Unclassified” at the same time. So, either this was just for some flair to the title of the article, or the record itself was “Confidential” but was declassified to a “Unclassified” level. If this is the case, declassified by whom? Safe to assume the latter is probably not the answer here, but it should be considered.

Also, the article states, “But in the months since the release, the Pentagon has clammed up. It has declined to release official documents about the Nimitz Tic Tac encounter, or similar incidents.”  This is actually inaccurate. If documents related to the Nimitz encounter were created under AATIP (which it sounds like they were), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is the Office of Primary Responsibility or OPR for declassifying the records. The DIA has not declined one request on these records for AATIP or anything related. Rather, they are so behind with processing their FOIA Case backlog, it may take literally years for records to be released.  That isn’t fun, exciting or helps us here, but that is the reality of it, and it is a reality I have dealt with for many years. Now, some in the UFO Community for quite some time have insinuated this is a cover-up denial by the government to release information, and that is not accurate. Sadly, that often touted belief in online articles and blogs is echoed in this article here, and it should be noted that is not accurate.

In closing, the document itself comes up with intriguing and interesting conclusions. The question, is intriguing and interesting conclusions by whom? Who was the author? What was the context of the document? Why was it written? When was it written? Who was it written for?

Although some of this is addressed and confirmed by anonymous sources in the article, sadly to the investigation of this program, we can not consider it gospel until additional records turn up and official documents are further released. We need to do better than “anonymous” or unnamed sources, and especially with documents which appear to be leaked, or non-government records.

To make matters a bit more confusing, investigative journalist Leslie Kean (one of the authors of the original NY TIMES article that broke the AATIP story) sent out a post on Facebook on May 19, 2018, the day after Mr. Knapp’s news story was published, and she stated she had this record back in 2017, and she said that it was from BAASS.

This contradicts the story, because BAASS is not the Pentagon, and if they did prepare it on an official basis/submission as part of their contract, then private contracted reports/analyses follow the same guidelines (like a classification statement/stamp/header/footer) as I noted above.

I’ll use a report by Dr. Eric Davis to prove that point: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/advanced-propulsion-study-air-force-research-laboratory-september-2004-dr-eric-w-davis/

This was a private contracted report back in 2004, paid for by US Tax Dollars.  You’ll see what I mean with the cover page and in this case, a “Distribution Statement” showing the document was UNCLASSIFIED and approved for public release.  This, and many other examples, show what official records/reports look like, even from a private contractor having not been prepared by the Pentagon itself.

On May 23, 2018, I asked the Pentagon about the report, and they gave this short response to my inquiry:

[ Back to the Top ]

Congressional Record Documents Cites AATIP

In mid August of 2018, the blog, “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena – scientific research” published an article of a discovery that references the, “Advanced Aerospace Threat and Identification Program.” It came from the April 9, 2018, Congressional Record, and reads as the following:

“4381. A letter from the Chief, Congressional Relations Division, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, transmitting a list of all products produced under the Advanced Aerospace Threat and identification Program contract for the Defense Intelligence Agency to publish; to the Committee on Armed Services.”

Credit is given to Roger Glassel from Sweden; Curt Collins from the USA; Paul Dean from Melbourne, Australia, and Keith Basterfield from Adelaide, South Australia for the find.

At this point, there is no indication of what hearing (if any) this is referring to.  This also introduces another variation of the name (adding in an “and” to the name and using the “Aerospace” variation.)  At the time of writing this addition to this page, there is not much we can deduce from this.

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [7.07 KB]

In July of 2018, Mr. George Knapp released a leaked version of the 38 reports created under The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). On this, were various, highly scientific and technical reports, by various authors, regarding fusion, advanced propulsion etc. The exact role they played in the AATIP program, is unclear.

On January 16, 2019, Mr. Nick Pope, formerly of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) who ran the “UFO Desk” there, received a similar list of reports, but from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)’s Office of Corporate Communications. At the same time, multiple FOIA requesters, including myself, were sent via postal mail, responses to various requests of the same.

This was my release, sent to me by the DIA, dated January 16, 2019:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.91 MB]

[ Back to the Top ]

The Black Vault Responds to FAQs

Comment: You won’t find anything. It’s all classified “Top Secret”

The Black Vault’s Answer: 

This one is fairly easy to address, and we have two things supporting the fact this is NOT true.

1) Mr. Elizondo is talking about the program. Any program that is fully/entirely classified will in most cases, be off limits where you can go on major media outlets and start discussing it.  A prime example of this, would be the programs that were revealed with the Snowden leaks. Those are entirely classified programs with “Top Secret” designations, and they were completely shielded from public disclosure, until, of course, the leaks.  If the AATIP program was classified to this degree, Mr. Elizondo would never be able to violate a security oath, as a former head of the program, then start preaching about the inner-workings of AATIP and ignoring his oath.

2) The DOD openly admits the program was real.  Any real, classified, programs likely would get a “no comment” or “we can neither confirm nor deny” response. This has never happened, since day 1.

[ Back to the Top ]

Comment: You won’t find anything. The U.S. Military hid it all within Bigelow Aerospace to circumvent the FOIA.

The Black Vault’s Answer: 

This is a common statement in regards to Bigelow Aerospace and AATIP, but I just don’t believe this would be accurate. And here is why:

Mr. Elizondo was not contracted by Bigelow Aerospace, but rather, by OSD. Therefore, any information from his e-mail, his reports, his documents,  his whatever, is FOIAable.

Mr. Elizondo has also spoken about the sources of his reports being from multiple DOD components, not the private sector. Also, all FOIAable because those records were generated under certain criteria and guidelines.  

In regards to Bigelow’s contract with DIA, of course Bigelow is going to have documents generated within, which are not FOIAable. And that may seem like a conspiracy/cover-up, but I don’t believe it is.  With a contract like this, the majority of the work will be in the form of quarterly reports, yearly reports, inventories, document transmittals, etc. etc. etc. which are all subject to FOIA. There is no way around that. Are internal emails from one Bigelow employee to another subject to FOIA? Of course not, but they have to turn information over, and once we can see the contract itself (which I am going after) we will see exactly what they had to turn over, or generate, or create, or bake, or sculpt, or color, or whatever. Then, a new slew of FOIA requests will commence.

For those with doubts of what I am saying, here is a prime example, and it loosely ties into this.

Dr. Eric W. Davis (who is tied to TTSA, Hal Puthoff and was on Coast to Coast AM in the beginning of 2018 talking about AATIP) was given money many years ago through contract F04611-99-C-0025. It appears that contract sent money to multiple different private corporations to do research on various types of projects. This will bring up different reports made under that contract: https://www.google.com/search?q=F04611-99-C-0025&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS754US754&oq=F04611-99-C-0025 as proof of what I am saying.

Dr. Davis’ portion of the money went towards the subject of Advanced Propulsion. His report, although public domain and now available online, can be obtained under FOIA from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). I received it and archived it here: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/advanced-propulsion-study-air-force-research-laboratory-september-2004-dr-eric-w-davis/

Warp Drive Metrics, as listed on the report, I believe is Dr. Davis’ own company. I haven’t dug too deep, so I could be wrong, but it’s private / non government, and yet here is proof the information contracted is all subject to FOIA in the form of a final report. Did Dr. Davis send out emails regarding his research? I’m sure. Can I get those under FOIA? No. But clearly, the money that financed this all was taxpayer money; and that information submitted back to the government is FOIAable in the form of his final report.

Here is another example, wherein this contract gave him money to finance research on laser light propulsion: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/review-of-laser-lightcraft-propulsion-system-october-16-2017-by-dr-eric-w-davis/

And another on teleportation physics: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/teleportation-physics-study-air-force-research-laboratory-august-2004-dr-eric-w-davis/

I believe that we get into conspiracy fantasy land if we think that proof of aliens / AATIP material / alien alloys etc. etc. are all hidden within a bunker deep inside Bigelow Aerospace and it’s planted there to circumvent FOIA and we chance giving alien/secret technology to a private corporation just so we can dodge people like me filing FOIAs.

Or………

Occam’s Razor dictates that documents are there for us to find under FOIA, and it’s just going to take time to get them, but we will likely find out that POSSIBLY, the AATIP program is not what we are being led to believe. 

[ Back to the Top ]

Comment: Around the end of April 2018, researchers brought forth the name AATIP was wrong, and it was actually the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program (AAWSAP). That is why the AATIP FOIA requests brought up nothing.

The Black Vault’s Answer: 

There is a lot wrong with this statement.  Here is why: First and foremost, many are talking about how this is a “new” revelation discovered by Mr. Paul Dean from Australia. He writes (in part):

In March, 2018, I was contacted by someone who claimed to be in a senior defence program leadership role. He stated that the UFO program on everyone’s lips was not officially called the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (AATIP). This was, apparently, a loose, almost ad hoc term for one part of a somewhat larger defence program. The true name of the overall program, or at least the official starting title, was the “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” (AAWSAP), or something extremely similar.

Of course, all this is based on what a DoD contact told me. The term “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program”, or its “AAWSAP” abbreviation, hasn’t been mentioned by anyone else. Not the New York Times, not Luis Elizondo, and not even the DIA’s public relations staffers who must, by now, have been flooded with enquiries. 

As I eluded, Glassel has found two examples of the AAWSAP project title. This had been shared privately with me, by two people, and I thought that there was simply no references available to absolutely confirm them for sure. I searched, but with no luck. Well, the “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” indeed did, or does, exist. Glassel, on a hunch, with keen-eyed Curt Collins in tow, discovered that Dr. Eric Davis, who has been closely associated with the AATIP and TTSA story, had published a number of scientific papers for the DIA, and two of those publications were already released and available online. The titles are, “Traversable Wormholes, Stargates and Negative Energy” and “Warp Drive, Dark Energy and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions”. Both are listed as “Defence Intelligence Reference Documents” and both were published in late 2009.

What I gather is that the AATIP desk was a major part of the overall AAWSAP effort. Also, the term AATIP was developed over time, and may have been tacked on to, or into, AAWSAP. AATIP was a looser title for internal usage, and it continued in other channels while the overall AAWSAP appears to have ended. 

The documents referenced above, used to confirm this new program, have been available online since at least December 18, 2017. There is nothing “new” about them:

– Source 1
– Source 2
– Source 3
– Source 4

I saw these documents back in late December and early January, but dismissed them as they are largely sourced/credited to Corey Goode, a very controversial figure to begin with. If they are genuine (and they may be) these documents do not appear that they were released under any official channels.   So the biggest question is, “How did Corey get them?”  I have not found an ‘older’ source, but am open if anyone else has.

It also should be noted, as I wrote the answer to the question above this one which has been on The Black Vault now for months, records like this are already publicly available which were written by Dr. Eric Davis. It would not surprise me if these documents are, in fact, genuine, but even if they are, they don’t teach us anything new. We already could deduce the Defense Intelligence Research Documents (DIRDs) as referenced by Dr. Davis on Coast to Coast AM, were probably going to be along the same lines as what I found while answering the question above and those documents ARE IRREFUTABLY genuine.  In the end, just because a document is written about Warp Drives and advanced propulsion, doesn’t mean the government took it seriously, built the devices or continued the research within the walls of the black budget intelligence community.

Given the assumption these documents are real, and the name “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” has already been confirmed as of 5/3/2018 by Major Audricia Harris, DoD Spokesperson to Roger Glassel, it should be blown too far out of proportion.  As Major Harris also says to Mr. Glassel, when asked if “Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program” was the actual project name, or was it AATIP, she replied:

“I would stick with AATIP. It is the official name.

Maj. Harris”

So, it’s settled. We are right back where we started, and we now know (again) that AATIP is the correct wording for those interested in the UFO/UAP phenomenon.

[ Back to the Top ]

FOIA Request Responses

Federal Aviation Administration

Since Bigelow Aerospace and Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) was mentioned as being a part of the AATIP program, I had recalled that many FAA manuals had BAASS listed as a place of contact for commercial pilot UFO reports.

The dates that Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS entered into the manuals very much coincide with the start of the AATIP program.  Prior, the manuals reference Bigelow Aerospace’s previous project called NIDS starting in 2002.  However, all references to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS have been removed, which coincides with the actual cancellation of the AATIP program (although this ‘cancellation’ date that is controversial, since Mr. Elizondo has gone on the record saying the program continued). It appears, however, that the removal of Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS from the FAA manuals coincides completely with this cancellation date.  The FAA now recommends contacting private organizations like the National UFO Reporting center to report their sightings.

In January of 2018, I requested under the FOIA all communications between Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS and the FAA.  I received a stack of communications on March 23, 2018, which include most of the communications about the change of contact within the FAA manuals.

Surprisingly, there were no other communications.  What I intended, was to get a hold of any reports that may have come in to the FAA, and forwarded to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS.  By the below FOIA release, nothing was ever forwarded from 2005 on.

So, it appears that if anything was reported during this time frame, it went directly to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS.  Sadly, in THIS specific case, all of those reports from any commercial pilot made DIRECTLY to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS, would never be subject to the FOIA (unless Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS included any of the reports they received in any documents they submitted under their AATIP contract.  That is still being determined.).

Regardless of the fact that I didn’t quite find what I was looking for, it still is an interesting look into the fact that the FAA had this in their manuals to report to Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS, but then had removed it.

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [3.83 MB]

FAA Manuals and Bigelow Aerospace

The FAA manuals can serve as an important clue when it comes to AATIP’s cancellation, or in fairness, at least the involvement of Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS. The following is a breakdown of various manuals, and dates, that reference Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS, and then when the manuals were updated wherein they do not.

 ORDER JO 7110.65X, October 17, 2017 – NO Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [614 Pages, 5MB]
 ORDER JO 7110.65W, December 10, 2015 – NO Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [729 Pages, 5MB]
 ORDER JO 7110.65V, April 3, 2014 – NO Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [660 Pages, 15.8MB]
—-> AATIP was (allegedly) cancelled in 2012
 ORDER JO 7110.65U, February 9, 2012 – Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [606 Pages, 3.4MB]
 ORDER JO 7110.65T, February 11, 2010 – Bigelow Aerospace/BAASS Reference [602 Pages, 5MB]
—-> See the above email exchanges between Bigelow Aerospace and the FAA to change the NIDS reference to BAASS
 ORDER JO 7110.65S, February 14, 2008 – Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [591 Pages, 4.8MB]
 ORDER 7110.65R, February 16, 2006 – Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [622 Pages, 5MB]
 ORDER 7110.65P, February 19, 2004 – Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [599 Pages, 4.3MB]
 ORDER 7110.65N, February 21, 2002 – Bigelow Aerospace/NIDS Reference [578 Pages, 20.7MB]
 ORDER 7110.65M, February 21, 2002 – NO UFO Reference at all [528 Pages, 14.6MB]

[ Back to the Top ]

Department of Defense (DOD)

[ Back to the Top ]

National Security Agency (NSA)

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [677.85 KB]

[ Back to the Top ]

The post The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), Tom DeLonge, Luis Elizondo and the Claims of To The Stars Academy first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), Tom DeLonge, Luis Elizondo and the Claims of To The Stars Academy appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

An Air Force RB-47, equipped with electronic countermeasures (ECM) gear and manned by six officers, was followed by an unidentified object for a distance of well over 700 miles, and for a time period of 1.5 hr., as it flew from Mississippi, through Louisiana and Texas and into Oklahoma.

The object was, at various times, seen visually by the cockpit crew as an intensely luminous light, followed by ground-radar and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47.

Of special interest in this case are several instances of simultaneous appearances and disappearances on all three of those physically distinct “channels,” and rapidity of maneuvers beyond the prior experience of the aircrew. 

Introduction

In the early morning hours of July 17, 1957, an RB-47 was flying out of Forbes Air Force Base, Topeka, Kansas, on a composite mission that included gunnery exercises over the Texas-Gulf area, navigation exercises over the open Gulf, and finally ECM exercises scheduled for the return trip across the south-central United States. The RB-47 was carrying a sixman crew, of whom three were electronic warfare officers manning ECM gear in the aft portion of the aircraft. Their names are as follows: Lewis D. Chase, pilot; James H. McCoid, copilot; Thomas H. Hanley, navigator; John J. Provenzano, No. 1 monitor; Frank B. McClure, No. 2 monitor; Walter A. Tuchscherer. No. 3 monitor. 

I shall draw upon my interview with the crew as well as case files which I finally located. The files consist of a three-page TWX filed from the 745th ACWRON, Duncanville, Texas, at 1557Z on July 17, 1957, and a four-page case summary prepared by E.T. Piwetz, Wing Intelligence Officer, 55th Reconnaissance Wing, Forbes AFB, and transmitted to ADC Hq., Ent AFB, Colorado, in compliance with a request of August 15, from Col. F. T. Jeep, Director of Intelligence, ADC. That summary, plus a 12-page Airborne Observer’s Data Sheet, was forwarded on November 17 from ADC to Blue Book, and was evidently the first notification Project Blue Book received concerning this case.

The 12-page Data Sheet (AISOP #2) was prepared by Major Chase on September 10, and contains a number of points of relevance not covered in other parts of the case file. There is very relevant information in the case file as to precise times, locations, and other circumstances, and the case file does have the great virtue of representing a summary account prepared while all of the details were fresh in the minds of the crew. 

Before describing the first ECM contact, it is necessary to explain briefly the nature of the ECM gear involved in this case. (Details are no longer classified, although all of the basic case-file documents were initially SECRET.) This RB-47 had three passive direction-finding (DF) radarmonitors for use in securing coordinate information and pulse characteristics on enemy ground-based radar.

The #2 monitor, manned by McClure, was an ALA-6 DF-receiver with back-to-back antennas in a housing on the belly of the RB-47 near the tail spun at 150 or 300 rpm as it scanned an azimuth. (Note that this implies ability to scan at 10/sec past a fixed ground radar in the distance.) It’s frequency range was 1000-7500 MHz. Inside the aircraft, the signals from the ALA-6 were processed in an APR-9 radar receiver and an ALA-5 pulse-analyzer. All subsequent references to the #2 monitor imply that system. 

Number 1 Monitor

The #1 monitor, manned by Provenzano, was an APD-4 DF system, with a pair of antennas permanently mounted on either wing tip. It was working at a higher frequency. The #3 monitor, with a frequency range from 30-1000 MHz, was manned by Tuchscherer.

It was not affected and will not be described here. VHF communications were likewise not affected. 

For emphasis, it needs to be stressed that the DF receivers are not radars and do not emit a signal for reflection off a distant target. They only listen passively to incoming radar signals and analyze signatures and other characteristics. When receiving a distant radar set’s signal, the scope displays a pip or strobe at an azimuthal position corresponding to the relative bearing in the aircraft coordinate system.

For the case of a fixed ground radar, approached from one side, the strobe is initially seen in the upper part of the scope and moves down-scope, a point to be carefully noted in interpreting the following discussion. 

Having completed the navigational exercises over the Gulf, Chase headed across the Mississippi coastline, flying at an altitude of 34,500 ft, at about Mach 0.75 (258 kt IAS=500 mph TAS). The weather was perfect and practically cloudless under the influence of a large high-pressure area extending throughout the troposphere.

There were no showers or thunderstorms anywhere along the flight route. Shortly after the coast near Gulfport was crossed at a point marked A on the map on page 00, McClure detected on the #2 monitor a signal painting at their 5 o’clock position (aft of the starboard beam). It looked to him as if he were receiving a legitimate ground-radar signal. Upon noting that the strobe was moving up-scope, McClure tentatively decided that it must be a ground radar off to their northwest painting with 180 deg ambiguity for some electronic reason.

But when the strobe, after sweeping up-scope on the starboard side, crossed the flight  path of the RB-47 and proceeded to move down-scope on the port side McClure said he gave up the hypothesis of 180 deg ambiguity as incapable of explaining such behavior. 

Fortunately, he had examined the signal characteristics on his ALA-5 pulse-analyzer, before the signal left his scope on the port side aft. In discussing it with me, his recollection was that the frequency was near 2800 mcs, and he recalled that what was particularly odd was that it had a pulse-width and pulse repetition frequency (PRF) much like that of a typical S-band, ground-based, search radar.

He even recalled that there was a simulated scan rate that was normal. Perhaps because of the strong similarities to ground-based sets such as the CPS-6B, widely used at that time, McClure did not, at that juncture, call this signal to the attention of anyone else in the aircraft.

The #1 monitor was not working the frequency in question, it later developed. The #3 monitor was incapable of working the frequency in question, McClure and the others indicated to me. 

I next quote information transcribed from the summary report prepared by the Wing Intelligence Officer, COMSTRATRECONWG 55, Forbes Air Force Base, concerning this part of the incident that involved this aircraft (call sign “Lacy 17”):  

Initial Visual Contact 

If nothing further had occurred on that flight to suggest that some unusual object was in the vicinity of the RB-47, McClure’s observations undoubtedly would have gone unmentioned and would have been quickly forgotten even by him. He was puzzled, but at that point still inclined to think that it was some electronic difficulty. 

The flight plan called for a turn to the west in the vicinity of Meridian and Jackson, Mississippi (Point B), with subsequent planned exercises wherein the EWOs did simulated ECM runs against known ground radar units.

The contemporary records confirm what Chase and McCoid described to me far more vividly and in more detail concerning the unusual events that soon ensued. 

They turned into a true heading of 265 deg, still at Mach 0.75 at 34,500 ft. At 1010Z (0410 CST), Major Chase, in the forward seat, spotted what he first thought were the landing lights of another jet coming in fast from near his 11 o’clock position at, or perhaps a bit above, the RB-47’s altitude.

He called McCoid’s attention to it, noted absence of any navigational lights, and as the single intense bluish-white light continued to close rapidly, he used the intercom to alert the rest of the crew to be ready for sudden evasive maneuvers.

But before he could attempt evasion, he and McCoid saw the brilliant light almost instantaneously change direction and flash across their flight path from port to starboard at an angular velocity that Chase told me he had never seen matched in all of his 20 years of flying, before or after that incident. The luminous source had moved with great rapidity from their 11 o’clock to about their 2 o’clock position and then blinked out. 

The Airborne Observer’s Data Sheet filled out by Chase as part of the post-interrogation gives the RB-47 position at the time of that 1010Z first visual contact as 32-00N, 91-28W, which puts it near Winnsboro in east-central Louisiana (Point C). 

The descriptions obtained in the 1969 interviews with these officers are closely supported by the original intelligence report:  

Actions over Louisiana — Texas Area

Immediately after the luminous source blinked out, Chase and McCoid began talking about it on the interphone, with the already alerted crew listening in. McClure, recalling the unusual signal he had received on his ALA-6 back near Gulfport, now mentioned for the first time that peculiar incident and concurrently set his #2 monitor to scan at about 3000 mcs, to see what might show up.

He found he was getting a strong 3000 mcs signal from about their 2 o’clock position, just the relative bearing at which the unknown luminous source had blinked out moments earlier. 

Provenzano told me that immediately after that they checked out the #2 monitor on other known ground-radar stations, to be sure that it was not malfunctioning; it appeared to be in perfect working order. He then tuned his own #1 monitor to 3000 mcs and also got a signal from the same bearing.

There remained, of course, the possibility that, just by chance, this signal was from a real radar down on the ground and off in that relative direction. But as the minutes went by and the RB-47 continued westward at about 500 mph, the relative bearing of the 3000 mcs source out in the dark did not move down-scope on the monitors as should have occurred with any ground radar, but instead kept up with the RB-47, holding a fixed relative bearing. 

I found these and ensuing portions of the entire episode still vivid in the minds of all the men, although their recollections for various details varied somewhat, depending on the particular activities in which they were then engaged. 

Chase varied speed, going to maximum allowed power, but nothing seemed to change the relative bearing of the 3000-mcs source. They crossed Louisiana and headed into eastern Texas, with the object still maintaining station with them.

Eventually they got into the radar-coverage area of the 745th ACWRON, Duncanville, Texas, and Chase dropped his earlier reluctance about calling attention to these peculiar matters and contacted that station (code name “Utah”).

The crew was becoming uneasy about the incident by this time, several of them remarked to me. That phase of the incident is tersely described in the following quotes from the report of the Wing Intelligence Officer:  

The Wing Intelligence Officer continued:  

Chase recalled that they had contacted Utah (his recollection was that it was Carswell GCI, however) prior to some of the above events and that Utah was ground-painting the target during the time it moved up-scope and reappeared visually. As will be seen below, the contemporary account makes fairly clear that Utah was not painting the unknown until a bit later, after it had turned northwestward and passed between Dallas and Ft. Worth.

Chase explained to me that he got FAA clearance to follow it in that off-course turn (Point D) and indicated that FAA got all jets out of the way to permit him to maintain pursuit. The Intelligence summary continues:  

At the instant that it blinked out visually and disappeared simultaneously from the #2 monitor and from the radar scopes at Site Utah, it was at a depression angle relative to his position of something like 45 deg.

Chase put the RB-47 into a port turn in the vicinity of Mineral Wells, Texas (Point E), and he and McCoid looked over their shoulders to try to spot the luminous source again. All of the men recalled the near simultaneity with which the object blinked on again visually, appeared on the #2 scope, and was again skin-painted by ground radar at Site Utah. The 1957 report describes these events as follows:  

He did not recall the sudden descent that is specified in the contemporary account, and there are a number of other minor points in the Intelligence Report that were not recollected by any of the crew.

He told me that when he dove from 35,000 ft to approximately 20,000 ft the object blinked out, disappeared from the Utah ground-radar scopes, and disappeared from the #2 monitor, all at the same time. McClure recalled that simultaneous disappearance, too.

It should be mentioned that the occasional appearance of a second visual and radar-emitting source was not recalled by any of  the officers when I interviewed them in 1969. 

Actions over Texas — Oklahoma Area 

McCoid recalled that, at about this stage of the activities, he was becoming a bit worried about excess fuel consumption resulting from use of maximum allowed power, plus a marked departure from the initial flight plan.

He advised Chase that fuel limitations would necessitate a return to the home base at Forbes AFB, so they soon headed north from the Ft. Worth area (Point F). McClure and Chase recalled that the ALA-6 system again picked up a 3000 mcs signal on their tail, once they were northbound from Ft. Worth but there was some variance in their recollections as to whether the ground radar concurrently painted the object.

McCoid was unable to fill in any of those details. Fortunately the 1957 Intelligence Report summarized further events in this part of the flight, as they moved northward into Oklahoma:  

Blue Book

The records indicate that Project Blue Book received summary information on this incident from ADC on Oct. 25, 1957 (over two months after occurrence of the event). A “Brief Summary” ends with the following paragraph:  

The post The RB-47 UFO Encounter, July 17, 1957 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post The RB-47 UFO Encounter, July 17, 1957 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The following documents were collected by UFO Investigator Rob Mercer, and digitized to preserve their history.

These documents are part of the “From the Desks of Project Blue Book” Archive. 

A note from Rob Mercer regarding the below file:

“I came across this case information in the files, it is regarding a May 1968 case that I wasn’t able to find in Blue Book official files. I have seen it mentioned in one sentence descriptions referencing Hynek. He took the witness information and may have looked at it later. It’s possible that who ever has his old papers probably has the case. I edited out the minimal witness info for their privacy. Rob”

Document Archive

 From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Mosinee, Wisconsin, 29 May 1968 [12 Pages, 5.8MB] 

https://documents.theblackvault.com/bluebookdesk/MosineeWI29May1968.pdf

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Mosinee, Wisconsin, 29 May 1968 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Mosinee, Wisconsin, 29 May 1968 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The following documents were collected by UFO Investigator Rob Mercer, and digitized to preserve their history.

These documents are part of the “From the Desks of Project Blue Book” Archive. 

Document Archive

 From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Florida – 22 July 1969 [6 Pages, 1.4MB]

https://documents.theblackvault.com/bluebookdesk/florida-1969-pbb.pdf

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Florida – 22 July 1969 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Florida – 22 July 1969 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The following documents were collected by UFO Investigator Rob Mercer, and digitized to preserve their history.

These documents are part of the “From the Desks of Project Blue Book” Archive. 

Document Archive

 From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Pensacola, Florida Case File – 1 July 1969 [2 Pages, 0.6MB]

https://documents.theblackvault.com/bluebookdesk/pensacolafl-1jul1969.pdf

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Pensacola, Florida Case File – 1 July 1969 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Pensacola, Florida Case File – 1 July 1969 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The following documents were collected by UFO Investigator Rob Mercer, and digitized to preserve their history.

These documents are part of the “From the Desks of Project Blue Book” Archive. 

Item numbers 65-70 and 115-122 are notes that are not included in the National Archives version.  Also included is the Socorro Mock up photo that that came with the collection.  

Project Blue Book Case File

 Socorro, New Mexico UFO Landing, 24 April 1964 [217 Pages, 88MB]

The above file is amazing UFO history, with never before seen, handwritten notes, on the Socorro case. Although many of these pages are found in the official Blue Book files of the National Archives, many of these notes, are not.

Additional Case Information

The following was written by BJ Booth, and is used here, with permission.  It offers a complete breakdown of the above case.

One of the most intriguing cases of a UFO sighting with physical trace evidence is that of the 1964 landing of an unknown craft witnessed by policeman Lonnie Zamora.

This event has been one of the mainstays of Ufology for over 40 years, and is definitely one of those cases which will not go away.

The Zamora incident began at 5:45 P.M. on April 24, 1964, in Socorro, New Mexico. Thirty-one year old policeman Lonnie Zamora was on patrol when he was passed by a car which was obviously speeding. Zamora took off in chase of the vehicle, but suddenly heard a loud roar in the distance, accompanied by a bluish, orange flame rising into the air.

He knew that there was a dynamite shack not too distant from him, and he thought at first that there had been an explosion there. Abandoning the chase for the speeder, he pointed his police car in the direction of the shack. He radioed his activities to the sheriff’s dispatcher.

As Zamora proceeded towards the rising smoke and flame, the aftermath of the explosion seemed to disappear and reappear because of the rising and dipping roads he traveled. The route he was on was a narrow gravel one and it wound around a small gully. As he approached the location of the shack, he noticed in the distance a shining object, anywhere from 100 to 200 yards away.

His first reaction to this sight was that it was an automobile which had overturned, and its gas tank had exploded. Upon a closer look, however, he discovered that it was an oval-shaped object without windows or doors. He stated that the object was about the same bulk of a medium-sized car.

He was drawn to an unusual red insignia on the side of the object, and then noticed two beings that he thought at first to be children, dressed in white overalls. He recalled that one of the “children” seemed to jump (become frightened), upon noticing him.

Regaining his composure, Zamora immediately radioed the sheriff’s office the details of the incident. He decided to get a closer look at the strange scene before him. He then heard a loud roar, and saw a bluish flame shoot out of the underside of the object. Afraid that it was going to explode, he fell to the ground to protect himself.

Next, he saw the object lift off the ground, and head southeast, flying in a straight line for about 10-15 miles. The legs that he had seen earlier had disappeared. Having intercepted Zamora’s earlier radio transmission, State Police Sergeant Sam Chavez arrived at the scene just after the craft disappeared into the sky.

The first military investigator on the scene, on April 25, was Army Captain Richard T. Holder, Up-Range Commander of White Sands Proving Grounds, along with an FBI agent, D. Arthur Byrnes, Jr., from the Albuquerque office. Major William Connor from Kirtland AFB and Sgt. David Moody, who was in the area on TDY, investigated for Air Force Project Blue Book on April 26. Dr. J. Allen Hynek arrived on April 28.

Hynek also conducted a follow-up investigation on August 15, 1964. Following is an excerpt from Capt. Holder’s report:

“Present when we arrived was Officer Zamora, Officer Melvin Katzlaff, [and]Bill Pyland, all of the Socorro Police Department, who assisted in making the measurements. When we had completed examination of the area, Mr. Byrnes, Officer Zamora, and I returned to the State Police Office [at]Socorro, then completed these reports. Upon arrival at the office location in the Socorro County Building, we were informed by Nep Lopez, Sheriff’s Office radio operator, that approximately three reports had been called in by telephone of a blue flame of light in the area… the dispatcher indicated that the times were roughly similar…”

Zamora told Capt. Holder and Major Connor, according to their notes:

“Noise was a roar, not a blast. Not like a jet. Changed from high frequency to low frequency and then stopped. Roar lasted possibly 10 seconds was going towards it at that time on the rough gravel road… At same time as roar, saw flame. Flame was under the object. Object was starting to go straight up slowly up… Flame was light blue and at bottom was sort of orange color… Thought, from roar, it might blow up…”

When the roar stopped, he heard a whining sound going from high tone to low tone, which lasted about a second. “Then,” he said, “there was complete silence… It appeared to go in [a]straight line and at same [constant]height, possibly 10 to 15 feet from ground, and it cleared the dynamite shack by about three feet… Object was traveling very fast. It seemed to rise up, and take off immediately across country.”

In 1968, Dr. James E. McDonald, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Arizona, said that he had learned of an alleged patch of “fused sand” at the Socorro landing site:

“A woman who is now a radiological chemist with the Public Health Service in Las Vegas was involved in some special analyses of materials collected at the Socorro site, and when she was there, the morning after [Apr. 25, 1964], she claims that there was a patch of melted and solidified sand right under the landing area. I have talked to her both by telephone and in person here in Tucson recently.”

She had analyzed plant fluids exuded from the scorched greasewood and mesquite plants, and told McDonald, “There were a few organic materials they couldn’t identify,” but most of the sample was just sap. “Shortly after she finished her work,” she told him, “Air Force personnel came and took all her notes and materials and told her she wasn’t to talk about it anymore.”

Analysis reports of physical evidence at the site have never been released to the public.

Two additional witnesses, Paul Kies and Larry Kratzer of Dubuque, Iowa, submitted statements to Dr. Hynek on May 29, 1968. In May of 1978 Ralph C. DeGraw, an Iowa investigator, interviewed them. They were driving just southwest of Socorro at about 6:00 p.m. that day when they noticed something shiny and a cloud of smoke near the ground in the vicinity of the town.

Later they heard a newscast about Zamora’s sighting and the significance of what they had seen became apparent.

Kratzer said he watched as “a round, saucer or egg-shaped object ascended vertically from the black smoke… After climbing vertically out of the smoke, the object leveled off and moved in a southwest direction.”

He said the object was silvery and had a row of apparent portholes across the side and a “red Z” marking toward one end. At the time he thought it might have been an experimental vertical-lift aircraft. Kies saw only a shiny spot and the smoke.

An FBI report dated May 8, 1964, notes that Zamora has been personally known for about 5 years and is “well regarded as a sober, industrious, and conscientious officer and not given to fantasy.”

The report also confirms the scorched foliage and the imprints, noting that, “Each depression seemed to have been made by an object going into the earth at an angle from a center line [and each]pushed some earth to the far side.”

Two years after the sighting, Major Hector Quintanilla, Air Force Chief of Project Blue Book at the time of the sighting, confided to intelligence specialists in a classified CIA publication that the Socorro case remained “puzzling.” With the help of many other agencies, he had conducted an exhaustive check of military activities looking for an explanation, but none could be found.

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Socorro, New Mexico UFO Landing, 24 April 1964 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Socorro, New Mexico UFO Landing, 24 April 1964 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The following documents were collected by UFO Investigator Rob Mercer, and digitized to preserve their history.

These documents are part of the “From the Desks of Project Blue Book” Archive. 

Document Archive

 White Sands, New Mexico, 3 November 1957

https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/whitesands.pdf

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: White Sands, New Mexico, 3 November 1957 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: White Sands, New Mexico, 3 November 1957 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

This film reel and documentation was collected by UFO Investigator Rob Mercer, and digitized to preserve the history. This feel reel is part of the “From the Desks of Project Blue Book” Archive.

Film Reel

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Tremonton, Utah, by Navy Warrant Officer Delbert Newhouse, 1952 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Tremonton, Utah, by Navy Warrant Officer Delbert Newhouse, 1952 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

This film reel was collected by UFO Investigator Rob Mercer, and digitized to preserve the history. This feel reel is part of the “From the Desks of Project Blue Book” Archive.

Film Reel

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Moline, Illinois by Patrolman Fisher, 8mm, 9 March 1967 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Moline, Illinois by Patrolman Fisher, 8mm, 9 March 1967 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

However, in the process of looking into the project name that was given to me, I received an intriguing response from the United States Air Force that will forever be a mystery (unless ‘disclosure’ in 2025 proves me wrong) – but I feel it’s worth a mention.

Could this be a mistake by the Air Force? Possibly!

And admittedly, most likely.

But now, almost two decades later, I have learned the military and the government don’t make many assumptions on FOIA requests, so a “mistaken assumption” on my inquiry would make this one of the only cases they actually did that with me.  And to date, I have filed well more than 5,000 FOIA requests.

So take that for what it’s worth – and here you go.

Background

Originally published in 1997:

Running an internet web site, I get many pranksters, jokers, and liars that write to me and tell me they are from the government, or they are going to kill me, or other ridiculous claims, but there have been a few where it made me think, “Maybe this one is for real.”

I got a letter from an anonymous source, and by their request, I will call him “Benjamin.” Now, “Benjamin” wrote me in regards to The Black Vault, and a posted photograph of an alleged aircraft called “Snowbird.”  

For those who are not familiar with this photograph, it is a supposed alien aircraft, and the picture is the craft mounted on top of a pylon, possibly at a Lockheed plant or even Area 51.

Now, “Benjamin” told me that this was an X-151 aircraft from Project Torridor. “Benjamin” went on to say that you would never get a picture of an alien aircraft in the daylight.

“Benjamin” worked for the National Reconnaissance Office. He relayed to me that all “Black Projects” are compartmentalized, that way no agency can really know what the other is doing.

He went on to tell me a bit about a base in New Mexico, in a mountain called “Baldy.” The base is 200 feet deep, and 30 acres square.

There are 1,500 from another world working there. They come from a dead planet in the Cygnus Ra Star System. “Benjamin” worked there, and gave me the exact coordinates: 21hours 13minutes 52seconds D33 degrees 10′.

The aliens, in exchange for us giving them a place to live, they will help us advance to join some kind of an alliance of planets. They hope that we will be ready by the year 2025.

This is where Project Tobacco comes in. Project Tobacco is a project to get the public ready for this event. It is done through movies, media, books, television, and magazines.

Project Tobacco was given it’s name because if anybody else would find out about it, it would burn up like Tobacco. So, on December 09, 1997, I wrote a Freedom of Information Act request to the United States Air Force, and also to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which “Benjamin” told me was part of the project.

I received two letters back, both dated December 29, 1997. The first was just an acknowledgment receipt. The second, was a letter starting off saying “This office is not a repository for UFO information.”

It went on to give me information on UFOs and Project Blue Book, and they attached a Fact Sheet on UFOs, a page I have been given many times.

Confused, I checked back to my letter, wherein I did not mention UFOs at all. No mention of aliens or flying saucers or anything that would spark a response like that, NOTHING.

Was this a goof-up? I went back to “Benjamin” who was very surprised I got this response. Wright Patterson is still to respond, but what will I get, if anything, from them? Now I am getting very interested, possibly “Benjamin” is telling the truth. Or maybe the Air Force did goof-up, but maybe they just figured I was talking about UFOs? Highly unlikely, because not all my requests to them deal with UFOs.

Now, I am going to do an excerpt out of one of “Benjamin”‘s letters, because I figure if I paraphrase it, I will just get the information mixed up. So here it is:

“I worked on the Gravity Catapult. Einstein General Theory has a number of similarities to the Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. In electromagnetism, the basic source of all the forces is the charge in the electron. The charge generates an electric field. If you move the charge to form an electric current, the current generates a magnetic field. If you increase or decrease a magnetic field, that hanging magnetic field in turn generates an electric field. The same thing happens in gravity. The basic source of all the forces is the mass of whatever particles you are using. The mass generates a gravity field. If you move the particles to form a mass current, the current generates a new field that is the gravitational equivalent of the magnetic field. (an anti-gravity engine). We have it, have had it for several years now and I worked on it. Why do you think NASA is slowly trying to down-size. They keep calling for smaller cheaper engines and so forth. They know that the present form of space-flight as well as transportation here on Earth is about to change. They don’t want to waste the money…but they have to or everyone will wonder why. The use millions of dollars of tax-payer money on useless stuff! This engine uses no fuel, has no sound and can never break. Since it uses gravitational fields for motion…as long as you have gravity, the engine will work.”

The above letter came from the Department of the Air Force Headquarters in the Pentagon. I had also sent the FOIA request to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, as “Benjamin” told me they were taking part in the project. After a few ‘extension letters’ requesting more time to process my request, I received the following:

Is this information real? Did the United States Air Force Headquarters make a huge mistake by referencing UFOs on a Project Tobacco FOIA request?

Comment below – and share your thoughts!

The post Project Tobacco – Anonymous Tip Turns Into Possible Confirmation of “UFO Disclosure” Project first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Project Tobacco – Anonymous Tip Turns Into Possible Confirmation of “UFO Disclosure” Project appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Major General William C. Garland is commander of the 1st Strategic Aerospace Division at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.

General Garland was born in 1916, in Barnesville, Ga., where he attended high school and junior college at Gordon Military College. During this period he served over four years with the Georgia National Guard. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., in May 1942, and immediately entered pilot training at the Greenville Aviation School, Ocala, Fla. He completed pilot training and received his pilot wings at Turner Field, Ga., in March 1943, and completed B-17 transition training at Sebring, Fla., in April 1943.

During World War II, General Garland served with the 401st Bombardment Group stationed in England and flew 32 combat missions in B-17 bomber aircraft. In June 1945 he returned to the United States and subsequently was assigned to Davis-Monthan Field, Ariz., as commanding officer of the Davis-Monthan West Camp.

In October 1945 General Garland went to Colorado Springs, Colo., and was assigned to Headquarters Second Air Force as chief of Operations and Training Division, and in 1946 became operations and training staff officer with the Fifteenth Air Force. In 1948 he was assigned as commander of the 32nd Bombardment Squadron, Smokey Hill Air Force Base, Kan. After graduation in June 1950 from the Air Command and Staff School, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., he was assigned to Headquarters Strategic Air Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., as requirements officer and later served as chief, Programs Division, Directorate of Plans.

General Garland was transferred to Madrid, Spain, in April 1954, where he served in the Plans Section of the Joint U.S. Military Group and in November was named chief of staff of the group. In October 1956 he became chief of staff of the Sixteenth Air Force in Spain. He returned to the United States in May 1957, and was assigned to Lockbourne Air Force Base, Ohio, as deputy commander of the 91st Strategic Wing and later of the 376th Bombardment Wing.

In August 1958 he became commander of the 97th Bombardment Wing, Biggs Air Force Base, Texas, and from December 1958 to July 1961 he served as commander of the 98th Bombardment Wing, Lincoln Air Force Base, Neb.

General Garland entered the National War College, Washington, D.C., in 1961, and following graduation was assigned as chief of staff, Second Air Force, Barksdale Air Force Base, La. During the National War College assignment he obtained his master’s degree in international affairs from The George Washington University. From March 1964 to August 1965 he was commander of the 12th Strategic Aerospace Division at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.

In August 1965 he became deputy director of information, and in June 1967 he assumed duties as director of information, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. He became commander of the 1st Strategic Aerospace Division, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., in August 1969.

He is a command pilot. His military decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster, Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters and Army Commendation Medal.

Interview

The following is the UFO portion of Major General Garland’s oral history interview. Below, you will find the interview, as received under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in it’s entirety.

A: Another thing and, once again, this is not the most important aspect. What was the status of the flying saucers when you were in SAF/IO? Did you ever find yourself standing up there and trying to say there are none?

G: Yes. I told them we had the little green men in a hangar at Wright-Patterson. (laughter)

A: You are the one who wrote that one? (laughter)

G: We were having about a thousand letters a month come into our community relations section on flying saucers, UFOs, so we decided we had to do something about it. This was not just SAF/OI. The Air Staff got involved in it. A guy named Randy Holzapple [Gen Joseph R. ], a lieutenant general, was involved in this sort of thing . We worked up a program to let the president’s Scientific Advisory Board get involved in it. We got about a million dollars from someplace and hired this fellow Dr. Condon, who at that time, I think, was at the University of Colorado . Before that he had been running the Bureau of Standards or something and a highly qualified and capable guy. We gave them the money. Our Systems Command people in the Pentagon drew up the contract with them. We didn’t handle it; we said, this is what we need to do. Here’s what we want. We want scientific, top technical people in the country to evaluate this problem. We want them to write a report in detail. We want them to give us a copy of the report, and at the same time we want them to give the press a copy of the report. We don’t want to know a damned thing about it until we see the final report, and we get it at the same time that the press gets it. You are going to have to monitor the contract just like you would monitor a contract if you buy an airplane. We don’t want anybody in the blue suit side giving anybody instructions on what to do. That is the ‘way it was handled. I don’t know’ if you have ever seen the report or not.

A: This is project Blue Book that used to be at Wright-Patterson. We used to have all that down at Maxwell.

G: It’s very interesting because in this study they went back to things like “Ezekiel saw the wheel ,” and they went back to your imagination. In other words , once you started shooting missiles and rockets, now you can imagine that you are going. Of the whole study though, it came out that a very, very high percentage, into the 90s, were explainable. You ended up with only 2 or 3 or 4 percent that were not explainable. In other words, we never questioned that an airline pilot saw something. We questioned what he saw, not what he thought he saw. Most of these things these people were able to reproduce. In a laboratory you could recreate the atmospheric condition, the lighting, and the shadows at that point in time and come up with an answer that the scientific community could accept.

Getting into the technical aspects of it , let’s just reverse the situation . If we are going to outer space, there are windows in which you go in, certain time period. You are going to go in these time periods, or you won’t have enough energy to get there. Then you can back that up and say, “If they are coming here, they are going to come in this time period. If they don’t come in that time period, then it is something else, and they couldn’t come. “It is like when you see an object going through here. You know you reach the speed of sound and you break the barrier. You can ‘t go at that speed of sound without breaking the sound barrier , whether you are round, square, oblong, or what. (laughter) 

That quieted down the thing for a while. Then we had Major Kehoe, an ex-Marine, and Carl Sagan from Cornell, who is a famous TV character now. Kehoe made a living at this. He had a vested interest in it, so he kept the thing going. Sagan had a vested interest in it because he was trying to get us to put up the radio type things that you could send signals out or you could receive signals from outer space. He couldn’t understand why we wouldn’t sponsor all of his programs on that. He is a brilliant man, he is a good scientist. He is involved in NASA programs, but when you have a vested interest you can say, “Well, there might be something to it,” and then the next thing you know, you’ve got a big story and got a lot of people interested. It was one heck of a problem to quiet down.

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/afhistory/Garland.pdf

The post Oral History Interview with Maj. Gen. William C. Garland Regarding UFOs first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Oral History Interview with Maj. Gen. William C. Garland Regarding UFOs appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The following document was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It is an edited translation from a Chinese publication entitled, “Hangtian.”  It was translation and archived by the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

This is one of many documents that proves that the United States Air Force, and the United States Government, was still interested in the UFO phenomenon, DECADES after the closure of their “Project Blue Book” investigation, which lasted from 1947 – 1969.

Excerpt

It was a clear, brightly starlit night, on 24 July 1981, in southwest and northwest China as well as a large area of southern and south central China. The Milky Way slanted across the night sky and there was no moon. Suddenly at 2238 hours, a strange star-shaped bright spot was sighted by a large number of people in Sichuan and Yunnan provinces when it appeared in the sky to the north.

The glimmer became brighter, began to oscillate and then a cloud-like band of light formed around the circumference of the bright spot.

The huge spiral shaped UFO with its bright silver color lighting up the cloudless night sky was an especially striking, magnificent and grand sight in contrast with the star-studded sky. In the brief six or seven minutes from its appearance to its disappearance, some 10,000,000 people simultaneously witnessed this extraordinary sight in the night sky.

In the first few month after the incident occurred, approximately 40 newspapers, periodicals, and radio stations have published and broadcast some 70 news reports and analytical research articles concerning this incident.

The New China News Agency transmitted this information to the entire world and the Hong Kong press continues to print reports with impressive layouts. The U. S. Center for UFO research in Illinois has also followed this event with great interest.

According to the Chinese Association for UFO Research, such a huge spiral UFO has occurred at least three times in the last four years over northwest China. During the inquiry into these matters, three main viewpoints have been formed: “the meteor theory”, “the aircraft theory”, and “the flying saucer theory”.

Declassified Document

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/ADA133326.pdf

The post UFO Incident Causes Sensation Throughout Half of China, 24 July 1981 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Incident Causes Sensation Throughout Half of China, 24 July 1981 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

That is, until it mysteriously vanished.

Background

The background behind my discovery of Air Force Instruction 10-206, is pretty short and sweet. I wanted to get proof of the fact that the U.S. Military and U.S. Government was still, decades after the closure of Project Blue Book, interested in the UFO phenomenon.

I stumbled on AFI 10-206 by accident in the year 2000  (don’t be confused by the document saying 2008 above — that’s simply a later revision).

I was surfing through some online government archives, and came across a reference to Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). It read, as follows:

Chapter 5
COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS REPORTING
VITAL INTELLIGENCE SIGHTINGS (CIRVIS)

5.1. Subject and Purpose. This report provides vital information to the security of the United States and Canada which, in the opinion of the observer, requires very urgent defensive action or investigation by the US and/or Canadian Armed Forces.

5.2. Submitted By. Any Air Force personnel.

5.3. Submitted To:

5.3.1. Airborne reports: US, Canadian military, or civilian communications facility.

5.3.2. Post-landing reports: Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Cheyenne Mt, Colorado, or HQ Northern NORAD Region, North Bay, Ontario, Canada, whichever is more convenient. If landing outside Canadian or US territories, submit reports through the nearest Canadian military or diplomatic representative or US.

5.4. When Submitted. As soon as possible after the intelligence sighting.

5.5. How Submitted. Reports are normally UNCLASSIFIED but handled as FOUO.

5.5.1. Use the most rapid means of transmission available. For airborne reports, use the same procedures as for air traffic control. When pilots cannot establish contact with a ground station, make maximum effort to relay the report via other aircraft.

5.5.2. To avoid delays while airborne, repeat the word CIRVIS three times before the message to preempt all other communications (except distress and urgency). If this fails to clear the frequencies, use the International Urgency Signal “PAN” spoken three times. For the ground relay of airborne reports or post-landing reports, use FLASH precedence.

5.5.3. Transmit during MINIMIZE.

5.5.4. Use the ESC C1 designator- Continue reporting, priority. 5.6. Reporting Instructions: 5.6.1. Facilities receiving CIRVIS reports will rapidly process and forward them as prescribed by NORAD Instruction 10-19. 5.6.2. Report all unidentifiable, suspicious, or hostile traffic (land, aerospace, or seaborne), which, because of its nature, course, or actions, considered a threat to the security of the United States or Canada. Such reporting extends the early warning defense system for the United States and Canada. There are five types of CIRVIS reports:

5.6.2.1. Issue initial CIRVIS reports while airborne (or as warranted, upon landing).

5.6.2.2. Issue post-landing CIRVIS reports if airborne reports made.

5.6.2.3. Issue follow-up CIRVIS reports by anyone with additional information about an earlier report (refer to the initial report).

5.6.2.4. Issue cancellation CIRVIS reports once sightings are positively identified as friendly or determined it was erroneously reported.

5.6.2.5. Submit evaluation CIRVIS reports to each addressee of the above CIRVIS reports. Promptly submit evaluation reports to keep all interested parties fully informed.

5.6.3. Report the following specific sightings:

5.6.3.1. Hostile or unidentified aircraft, which appears directed against the United States, Canada, or their forces.

5.6.3.2. Missiles.

5.6.3.3. Unidentified flying objects.

5.6.3.4. Hostile or unidentified military surface vessels or submarines.

5.6.3.5. Any other individual surface vessels, submarines, or aircraft of unconventional design engaged in suspicious activity, observed in an unusual location, or on a course, which may threaten the United States, Canada, or their forces.

5.6.3.6. Any unexplained or unusual activity, which may indicate a possible attack against or through Canada or the United States (includes the presence of any unidentified or suspicious ground parties in remote or sparsely populated areas, including the polar region).

5.6.3.7. Unlisted airfields, facilities, weather stations, or air navigation aids.

Granted, there may be a whole lot of nonsense in there that doesn’t mean much to you, but check out 5.6.3.3. “Unidentified Flying Objects.”  So, what does that mean?

If you take the company line, then you believe the U.S. Military, ESPECIALLY, the U.S. Air Force, cares nothing about the UFO phenomenon. So, if that were true, why would they have a regulation still on the books, mandating that all military pilots report them? (That is, still on the books at the time I discovered it – make sure you read through until the end).

I thought to myself, this may be the “Smoking Gun!” This was finally proof that the Air Force was still collecting UFO reports.  I dug a bit deeper, and found where these CIRVIS reports were being sent to (that’s what the reports were called, if filed under AFI 10-206).  I found that piece of the puzzle, here:

Once I found this reference, I thought I had it made. I filed a FOIA request to the NORAD installation, and finally, got a response. I expected to receive a packet of CIRVIS reports dealing with UFOs. Instead, I got this:

Not sure how you spell, “convenience,” but my guess it will include the above somehow.

There aren’t many places that are not subject to the FOIA, and wouldn’t you know, that all “UFO” information, better known as CIRVIS reports, are sent to one of those places. Hmmm.

The letter went on to state that in the spirit of the FOIA, they looked for UFO information but found no records. In essence, they claimed there were no CIRVIS / UFO reports that were ever sent under Air Force Instruction 10-206. That’s odd. Not one?

The Canadian Connection

Well, you’re going to to kick me on this one because it took me over a year before it dawned on me.

The answer to this riddle laid within the letter above.

Under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, NORAD was exempted, as it was under Canadian control as well as American. Therefore, U.S. law did not apply. However, after about a year of thinking about it, I thought maybe the Canadian government had an equivalent that I could use to access the documents.

I learned that there was the “Access to Information Act (AIA).” This was, for the most part, identical to the FOIA here in America, but I just didn’t know if a U.S. Citizen could use it.

I called the Department of National Defence (equivalent to the Department of Defense in America) and I asked them on the telephone if a U.S. citizen could use the AIA?  Although this was quite a few years ago (circa 2000), I remember it like it was yesterday. After I asked my question to the nice gentleman who answered the phone – he thought for a moment, and said, “Well, if the information has been released before, I do not see why not.”

So, I thought, “Great!”  I began explaining what I was looking for. “What I am looking for are called CIRVIS reports, the acronym stands for Communication Instructions for Reporting…….”

He interrupted me (politely) before I ever got the sentence out. He said, “Oh yeah! I have those right here!”

A very awkward silence ensued.

He had no idea who I was, why I was calling, or even the fact that the call had to do with UFOs or CIRVIS.

This was not a UFO office. This wasn’t a special CIRVIS division. This wasn’t even after being placed on a hold. He had them, within arm’s reach, and it took only seconds for him to grab them.

What happened next was pretty obvious. I asked if I could get a copy of them. He asked for my VISA, and I’ll tell you that was about the best $3 (U.S dollars) I ever spent.

A few weeks later, the stack of CIRVIS reports came in the mail:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [2.54 MB]

However, before I got off the phone, he said something I didn’t expect. “You know, this isn’t all of them!”  He informed me that there were many more CIRVIS  and UFO related reports in the Archives division. Years later, through the assistance and generosity of researcher Michel Deschamps, I have also obtained those documents. You can download those pages, here.

The Vanishing Act

For a few years, I would bring up the above find in my public speaking. In fact, I even worked it in to a History Channel documentary I was writing at the time, and I spoke about it in a few television interviews.  But I didn’t feel it was getting the attention it deserved.

However, in 2011, my friend, investigative journalist Lee Speigel from the Huffington Post, decided to do an expose on my work and The Black Vault.

He asked a very commonly asked question, “What are some of the most intriguing documents?”

So, I gave him a short list, which included this very find. I felt then (as I still do now) the above document, along with my trouble to get it, is an important piece of evidence. I even showed Mr. Speigel that he didn’t have to take my word for it – I found it could be directly downloaded from the Air Force itself, on their website, and I pointed him in the right direction to get it.

You had to dig quite a bit — but it was there! And it was amazing it was right there in the open.  It was just that nobody was looking hard enough to find it!

While investigating my claims and the information, he did what any great journalist would do. He contacted the Air Force at the Pentagon, to get their side of it. Why would they still, after all these decades, have a UFO regulation ‘on the books’ if they claimed no interest in the phenomena after their investigation that ended in 1969?

He received no written response or return calls at this point.

A few days later, with a deadline looming, Mr. Speigel went back online to download the manual again, and finish his article.

I received a fairly frantic, but excited call, late on a Friday evening. I was in Los Angeles, while Mr. Speigel was in New York.  It was late for me, so with the time difference, I figured this had to be good since it was SO late for him.

I must admit, I never expected what he was going to tell me.

When I answered, he informed me that while re-downloading the Air Force Instruction 10-206, he discovered that Chapter 5 was ‘missing’ and had been replaced with something on hurricanes.  The references to UFOs, CIRVIS and the entire reporting procedure — had vanished.

To be honest, and with all due respect to him, I thought he messed up. Government archives are archaic, disorganized at best, and it’s easy to click on the wrong thing. So I told him when I got home, I’d find the correct link and shoot it over to him.

But I was wrong. The Air Force, within 72 hours after the Huffington Post inquiry, deleted the entire chapter, modified the instruction, and silently republished it online with a brand new publication date.

Chapter 5 was, in fact, about hurricanes.  CIRVIS was completely omitted. It was like a different publication all together.

I filed a FOIA request for all documents relating to the change of AFI 10-206. I came up with the change log below:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [247.13 KB]

Today, AFI 10-206 has been revised again, and is current a/o 12 April 2016.

Linked directly from the Air Force, you can find one of the supplemental versions here:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [488.00 B]

Don’t Be Too Skeptical

AFI 10-206, and the amazing vanishing act, in my opinion, is an important piece of evidence for this field. And if you think it was just simply an old, outdated, publication that was changed because it was long forgotten and Mr. Speigel just brought it up to them — think again. While I was lecturing about it for many years, I watched as AFI 10-206 was edited and republished multiple times. I would update my powerpoint presentation, to ensure I had the most recent copy to show audiences. Those changes prove that they had every opportunity during those edits to remove CIRVIS and UFOs.  Yet, after each edit, the entire chapter was untouched and UFOs remained in.

Do you believe it was simply a coincidence, that this revision which entirely removed the chapter dedicated to UFO sightings and CIRVIS reports, would by some amazing chance, come within 48-72 hours of a major media organization attempting to put a spotlight on it?

Post your thoughts below – and let me know!  Because I sure don’t believe it.

The post Air Force Instruction 10-206 – The Vanishing UFO Regulation first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Air Force Instruction 10-206 – The Vanishing UFO Regulation appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

I-Team: Clinton aide seeks UFO files

By George Knapp , Matt Adams | madams@8newsnow.com

Several U.S. presidents are on the record, talking about the UFO mystery. Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan say they had UFO sightings of their own, but the current presidential campaign might be the first in which UFO disclosure has been championed by a major party candidate.

During a recent campaign stop in Las Vegas, the campaign manager for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told Politics NOW co-host Steve Sebelius that Clinton will try to get to the bottom of the UFO question.

John Podesta has always been a strong advocate for declassification of government files in general and UFO files in particular.

“I think the American people can handle the truth about this,” he said.

As White House Chief of Staff for former President Bill Clinton, Podesta helped declassify hundreds of millions of documents. If there were UFO secrets being held somewhere, however, they eluded even the president.

Podesta returned to the White House as a special advisor to President Barack Obama. On the day he left the job, he sent out a Tweet saying his biggest disappointment was the failure to find and uncover the UFO files.

These days, Podesta has the ear of another potential president; he’s running the campaign for Hillary Clinton. He made it clear to Sebelius that the UFO question has been discussed.

“I’ve talked to Hillary about that. It’s a little bit of a cause of mine, which is, people really want to know what the government knows, and there are still classified files that could be declassified,” he said.

It wasn’t an offhand remark. Podesta has encouraged journalists to ask his candidate about UFOs, and a few have done so. Mrs. Clinton told a New Hampshire newspaper that she intends to get to the bottom of the UFO mystery, thinks it is possible the planet may have been visited and would consider creating a task force to investigate Nevada’s Area 51 military base. The base became a center of UFO attention more than 25 years ago because of reports that aired on KLAS-TV.

CNN characterized Mrs. Clinton’s remarks as jokes, but Podesta makes it clear that he and his candidate are serious.

“I think I’ve convinced her that we need an effort to kind of go look at that and declassify as much as we can, so that people have their legitimate questions answered,” he said. “More attention and more discussion about unexplained aerial phenomena can happen without people who are in public life, who are serious about this, being ridiculed.”

The Clintons know first-hand how the UFO topic invites ridicule. Many people may remember the frequent tabloid headlines during the Clinton presidency with titles such as “Hillary Adopts Alien Baby” or “Space Alien Endorses Bill.”

More recently, conspiracy theorists have suggested there are UFO secrets hidden in Mrs. Clinton’s private e-mails. It comes with the territory.
“I come in for my fair share of people asking questions about whether I am off my rocker, but I’ve been a long-time advocate of declassification of records,” Podesta said.

Huffington Post writer Lee Speigel has followed the UFO debate since the late 1970s. He notes that Podesta has been way out in front on UFO disclosure in speeches at places like the National Press Club.

“It’s time to open the books,” Podesta told the club.

“He ended one of his speeches by saying, not only could the public handle it, but we should do it because it’s the law,” Speigel said.

In the mid-1990s, billionaire Laurence Rockefeller lobbied the Clintons to end UFO secrecy. Mrs. Clinton was photographed with Rockefeller while holding a book titled, “Are We Alone? The Implications of Discovery of ET Life.”

Bill Clinton has made public statements confirming that he tried to get to the bottom of UFO issues while in office.

“First thing I did is send people to Area 51 to see if there were any aliens there,” he told late night host Jimmy Kimmel.

The government’s interest in UFOs officially ended with the closure of Project Blue Book in 1969, but suspicion remains that unexplained encounters involving national security are still being studied by someone.

Podesta suspects someone is holding on to a large cache of UFO files. Speigel says several whistleblowers have surfaced over the years, including the late lunar astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, who say secrets are still being kept.

“There’s military people coming forward now saying, ‘Yeah, the government never did stop investigating UFOs,’ and we need to own up to that,” Speigel said.

“We can see what’s going on here in Nevada,” Podesta said.

Mrs. Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, was also asked about UFOs. He said he is far more interested in issues that are more pressing for most Americans.

The post Hillary Clinton & John Podesta Say She Will Release UFO & Alien Files If Elected President first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Hillary Clinton & John Podesta Say She Will Release UFO & Alien Files If Elected President appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

In March of 2016, a “viral” story resurfaced about a UFO in a NASA photograph, that was mysteriously ‘deleted’ from NASA’s website.  After investigation, the original link that showed the photograph in question was broken, it is likely due to the fact that the database simply was moved. The new source, once located, verifies the photograph is still available for download.  So, the story about it being “deleted” is largely untrue.

However, what IS true, is the fact that the photograph does show an unidentified “formation” of UFOs, whatever they may be. This page was created to help make sense of a largely incorrect story being circulated.

What are we looking at?

The photograph in question, which is verified as a genuine NASA photograph, has an unexplained formation of UFOs in the frame. Above, you will find the zoomed in photograph, with no editing other than increasing the size / zooming in.

Official NASA Caption / Photograph Information

Other Anomalous Objects?

Upon investigation, there are other POSSIBLE anomalous objects, in the same frame. Although potentially just satellites, space debris or photographic artifacts caused by a multitude of factors – they should be noted:

Why are these important? Let’s say the original anomalous artifact is easily explained, like a satellite or other space debris that is floating around. On Earth, a long exposure of a moving object results in a long streak of light, vs. what appears to be multiple lights. Let’s just say this photograph was the result of multiple photos laid on top of each other, to bring out detail (which sometimes, NASA does of other planetary objects) well, these additional object prove that there is no movement on the camera, long exposure or multiple photos laid on top of each other. Because, if any of the aforementioned were true, you’d have the same effect on all of these, as you did the original object we are zooming in on.

Original NASA Source

As of March 12, 2016, you can obtain the high resolution photograph at this URL: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/photo.pl?mission=STS100&roll=708A&frame=48

High Resolution

This is the highest known resolution of this photograph. Simply click on the following image for the full size 2063 × 2048:

The post Unexplained Formation of Objects on NASA Photograph from Space Shuttle STS-100 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Unexplained Formation of Objects on NASA Photograph from Space Shuttle STS-100 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Note from The Black Vault: Playing off the popularity of the return of The X-Files in 2016, the CIA had created a few pages online showcasing their UFO documents, and even creating a, “How To Investigate a Flying Saucer” guide. This guide has been archived below for research purposes, in case the online page ever disappears or is taken offline.  It is not edited in any way.

Southbound on a lone desert highway, police officer Lonnie Zamora was in pursuit of a speeding car outside the town of Socorro, New Mexico, when he was startled by a loud roar! Seconds later, he saw a large flame rise from the ground and pierce the sky above a remote patch of desert southwest of the highway. Fearing a nearby dynamite shack might have exploded, Zamora let the speeding car go, turned right, and drove down a bumpy gravel road that ran alongside the shack.

Zamora’s cruiser clunked along the rocky road until he came upon a steep hill. Rising from behind the hill was a smokeless fire that glowed in a funnel of blue and orange tinted flames. The hill obscured the origin of the flames, so Zamora attempted to drive up it. His cruiser’s tires slipped and swayed on the loose gravel, but after three attempts, Zamora finally made it to the top.

A shiny object, the size of a sedan, sparkled in the late afternoon sunshine about 150-200 yards from where Zamora was perched on the hilltop. At first glance, he thought it was a car overturned in an arroyo (dry creek bed), but when he drove closer, it appeared to be aluminum in color, not chrome, and oval-shaped like a football.

Zamora drove toward the object, along the hill’s crest, for about 50 feet and then stopped the car. He radioed back to the sheriff’s office that he would be busy checking on a wreck “down in the arroyo,” and then he descended on foot down the hill toward the object.

Roooaaarrr! Zamora was startled again by a very loud rumble, not exactly like a blast but also not steady like a jet engine. It started at a low frequency, with the pitch slowly rising. The flame appeared to be coming from the underside of the object, glowing light blue on top and orange at the bottom. Zamora panicked, afraid the object was about to blow.

He ran to take cover but turned back to look at the object as he fled. He noticed a red symbol on the side, shaped like a point that was about 2 inches high and 2 inches wide. The object was smooth, a shiny white aluminum, with no visible windows or doors. There appeared to be two metal legs, slanted outward, supporting it.

Zamora sprinted to his car, hit his leg on the fender, and crashed to the ground. He got up, ran another 25 feet or so, and when he looked back again, he saw the object begin to rise.

It rose to the level of the car, then higher, about 20 to 25 feet in the air.

Zamora ran another 50 feet from his car, just over the edge of the hill, and ducked. Kneeling as close to the ground as he could, he covered his face with his arms for protection. Suddenly, the roar stopped. In the uneasy silence, Zamora lifted his head and looked.

The object sped away from him, toward the southwest, appearing to go in a straight line at about 10-15 feet off the ground. It cleared the eight foot tall dynamite shack by about three feet and then continued in a southwesterly direction, until it went over the high desert mountains and disappeared…

Hector Quintanilla, the last chief officer of the US Air Force’s famous UFO investigation program, Project BLUE BOOK, was in charge of the Zamora case. His team was convinced that Zamora was telling the truth, and despite an extremely thorough investigation, they were unable to locate the object or its origins. In an article for Studies in Intelligence called, “The Investigation of UFO’s,” Quintanilla says that the Zamora sighting is “the best-documented case on record.” It remains unsolved.

Project BLUE BOOK was based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. Between 1947 and 1969, the Air Force recorded 12,618 sightings of strange phenomena — 701 of which remain “unidentified” like the Zamora case. Although the CIA was not directly affiliated with Project BLUE BOOK, the Agency did play a large role in investigating UFOs in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which led to the creation of several studies, panels, and programs. Former CIA Chief Historian, Gerald K. Haines, wrote an in-depth article looking at the Agency’s role in studying the UFO phenomenon for Studies in Intelligence. In his article,“CIA’s Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Haines says that “while the Agency’s concern over UFOs was substantial until the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena.”

With over 20 years of investigations, from the late 1940s until Project BLUE BOOK’s termination in 1969, the CIA and USAF have learned a thing or two about how to investigate a UFO sighting. While most government officials and scientists now dismiss flying saucer reports as a quaint relic of the 1950s and 1960s, there’s still a lot that can be learned from the history and methodology of “flying saucer intelligence.”

10 Tips When Investigating a Flying Saucer:

1. Establish a Group To Investigate and Evaluate Sightings

Before December 1947, there was no specific organization tasked with the responsibility for investigating and evaluating UFO sightings. There were no standards on how to evaluate reports coming in, nor were there any measurable data points or results from controlled experiment for comparison against reported sightings.

To end the confusion, head of the Air Force Technical Service Command, General Nathan Twining, established Project SIGN (initially named Project SAUCER) in 1948 to collect, collate, evaluate, and distribute within the government all information relating to such sightings, on the premise that UFOs might be real (although not necessarily extraterrestrial) and of national security concern. Project SIGN eventually gave way to Project GRUDGE, which finally turned into Project BLUE BOOK in 1952.

2. Determine the Objectives of Your Investigation

The CIA’s concern over UFOs was substantial until the early 1950s because of the potential threat to national security from these unidentified flying objects. Most officials did not believe the sightings were extraterrestrial in origin; they were instead concerned the UFOs might be new Soviet weapons.

The Project BLUE BOOK team, according to Quintanilla, defined three main objectives for their investigations:

• To determine if UFO phenomena present a threat to the security of the US;
• To determine if UFO phenomena exhibit any technological advances which could be channeled into US research and development; and
• To explain or identify the stimuli which caused the observer to report a UFO.

Although BLUE BOOK, like previous investigative projects on the topic, did not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial phenomena, their research and investigations focused primarily on national security implications, especially possible Soviet technological advancements.

3. Consult With Experts

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, various projects, panels, and other studies were led or sponsored by the US government to research the UFO phenomenon. This includes the CIA-sponsored 1953 Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects, also known as the “Robertson Panel.” It was named after the noted physicist H.P. Robertson from the California Institute of Technology, who helped put together the distinguished panel of nonmilitary scientists to study the UFO issue.

Project BLUE BOOK also frequently consulted with outside experts, including: astrophysicists, Federal Aviation officials, pilots, the US Weather Bureau, local weather stations, academics, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA, Kodak (for photo analysis), and various laboratories (for physical specimens). Even the famous astronomer Carl Sagan took part in a panel to review Project BLUE BOOK’s findings in the mid-1960s. The report from that panel concluded that “no UFO case which represented technological or scientific advances outside of a terrestrial framework” had been found, but the committee did recommend that UFOs be studied intensively to settle the issue once and for all.

4. Create a Reporting System To Organize Incoming Cases

The US Air Force’s Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) developed questionnaires to be used when taking reports of possible UFO sightings, which were used throughout the duration of Project BLUE BOOK. The forms were used to provide the investigators enough information to determine what the unknown phenomenon most likely was. The duration of the sighting, the date, time, location, or position in the sky, weather conditions, and the manner of appearance or disappearance are essential clues for investigators evaluating reported UFO sightings.

Project BLUE BOOK categorized sightings according to what the team suspected they were attributable to:Astronomical (including bright stars, planets, comets, fireballs, meteors, and auroral streamers);Aircraft (propeller aircraft, jet aircraft, refueling missions, photo aircraft, advertising aircraft, helicopters); Balloons; Satellites; Other (including missiles, reflections, mirages, searchlights, birds, kites, spurious radar indications, hoaxes, fireworks, and flares); Insufficient Data; and finally,Unidentified.

According to Quintanilla, “a sighting is consideredunidentified when a report apparently contains all the data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis, but its description cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomenon.”

5. Eliminate False Positives

Eliminate each of the known and probable causes of UFO sightings, leaving a small portion of “unexplained” cases to focus on. By ruling out common explanations, investigators can focus on the truly mysterious cases.

Some common explanations for UFO sightings discovered by early investigations included: misidentified aircrafts (the U-2, A-12, and SR-71 flights accounted for more than half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s and most of the 1960s); celestial events; mass hysteria and hallucination; “war hysteria;” “midsummer madness;” hoaxes; publicity stunts; and the misinterpretation of known objects.

Even history can shed some light. An interesting citation found by the 1953 Robertson Panel noted that some sightings had been attributed to an older phenomenon – “Foo Fighters” – that pre-dated the modern concept of UFOs: “These were unexplained phenomena sighted by aircraft pilots during World War II in both European and Far East theaters of operation wherein ‘balls of light’ would fly near or with the aircraft and maneuver rapidly. They were believed to be electrostatic (similar to St. Elmo’s fire) or electromagnetic phenomena… but their exact cause or nature was never defined. If the term ‘flying saucers’ had been popular in 1943-1945, these objects would have been so labeled.”

6. Develop Methodology To Identify Common Aircraft and Other Aerial Phenomena Often Mistaken for UFOs

Because of the significant likelihood a common (or secret military) aircraft could be mistaken for a UFO, it’s important to know the characteristics of different types of aircraft and aerial phenomenon to evaluate against each sighting. To help investigators go through the troves of reports coming in, Project BLUE BOOK developed a methodology to determine if the UFO sighting could likely be attributable to a known aircraft or aerial phenomenon. They wrote up detailed descriptions characterizing each type of aircraft or astronomical phenomenon, including how it might be mistaken for a UFO, to help investigators evaluate the incoming reports.

7. Examine Witness Documentation

Any photographs, videos, or audio recordings can be immensely helpful in evaluating a reported UFO sighting.

A famous case examined by the Robertson Panel was the “Tremonton, Utah Sighting” of 1952, where a couple and two children traveling cross-country on State Highway 30 outside of Tremonton saw what appeared to be 10-12 bright shining objects moving westward in the sky in a rough formation. The husband was able to capture some of the objects on film.

The case was considered significant because of the “excellent documentary evidence in the form of Kodachrome motion picture films (about 1600 frames).” The Panel examined the film, case history, ATIC’s interpretation, and received a briefing from representatives of the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory on their analysis of the film. The laboratory believed the objects were not birds, balloons, aircraft, or reflections, and therefore had to be “self-luminous.” The panel disagreed with the assessment that the objects were self-luminous, believing that if a controlled experiment was conducted, a terrestrial explanation for the sighting would be confirmed.

8. Conduct Controlled Experiments

As suggested by the Robertson Panel for investigating the Tremonton, Utah sighting (mentioned in tip #7), controlled experiments might be required to try and replicate the unknown phenomena. In the Tremonton case, the Panel suggested an experiment where scientists would photograph “pillow balloons” at different distances under similar weather conditions at the site. They believed such an experiment could help dispel the “self-luminous” theory about the objects in the film. Unfortunately, in this case, the cost of conducting such an experiment made the idea unfeasible.

9. Gather and Test Physical and Forensic Evidence

In the Zamora case (from the introduction), Quintanilla contends that during the course of the investigation and immediately thereafter, “everything that was humanly possible to verify was checked.” This included bringing in Geiger counters from Kirtland Air Force Base to test for radiation in the landing area and sending soil samples to the Air Force Materials Laboratory. “The soil analysis disclosed no foreign material. Radiation was normal for the ‘tracks’ and surrounding area. Laboratory analysis of the burned brush showed no chemicals that could have been propellant residue,” according to Quintanilla. “The findings were all together negative.” No known explanation could be found for the mysterious event.

10. Discourage False Reporting

The Robertson Panel found that the Air Force had “instituted a fine channel for receiving reports of nearly anything anyone sees in the sky and fails to understand.” This is a classic example of needing to separate the “signal from the noise.” If you have too many false or junk reports, it becomes increasingly difficult to find the few good ones worthy of investigation or attention.

The CIA in the early 1950s was concerned that because of the tense Cold War situation and increased Soviet capabilities, the Soviets could use UFO reports to ignite mass panic and hysteria. Even worse, the Soviets could use UFO sightings to overload the US air warning system so that it could not distinguish real targets from supposed UFOs.

In order to lessen the amount of false-positive reports, the Robertson Panel suggested educating the military, researchers, and even the public on how to identify objects or phenomena commonly mistaken for UFOs. For example, they recommended training enlisted, command, and research personnel on how to properly recognize unusually illuminated objects (like balloons or aircraft reflections), as well as natural phenomena (such as meteors, fireballs, mirages, or noctilucent “night” clouds). By knowing how to correctly recognize objects that were commonly mistaken for UFOs, investigators could quickly eliminate false reports and focus on identifying those sightings which remained unexplained.

The post The CIA’s 2016 Guide to “How To Investigate a Flying Saucer” first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post The CIA’s 2016 Guide to “How To Investigate a Flying Saucer” appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

July 4, 1947; over Emmet, Idaho. 8:17 p.m. PDT. Witnesses:
United Air Lines Capt. E.J. Smith, First Officer Ralph Stevens,
Stewardess Marty Morrow. Watched for 12-15 minutes while four
objects with flat bottoms and rough tops moved at varying speeds,
with one high and to the right of the others.

July 6, 1947; Fairfield-Suisan Air Base, California. Daytime.
Witnesses: Army Air Forces Capt. and Mrs. James Burniston.
Watched for 1 minute while one object having no wings or tail
rolled from side-to-side three times and then flew away very fast
to the southeast.

July 8, 1947; Muroc Air Base, California. 9:30 a.m. PDT.
Witnesses: lst Lt. Joseph McHenry, T/Sgt Ruvolo, S/Sgt Nauman,
Miss Janette Scotte. Watched for an unstated length of time
while two disc-shaped or spherical objects–silver and apparently
metallic–flew a wide circular pattern, and then one of them
later flew a tighter circle.

July 9, 1947; Meridian, Idaho. 12:17 p.m. PDT. Witness: Idaho
statesman aviation editor and former (AAF) B-29 pilot Dave
Johnson. Watched for more than 10 seconds from an Idaho Air
National Guard AT-6 while a black disc, which stood out against
the clouds, made a half-roll and then a stair-step climb.

July 10, 1947; Harmon Field, Newfoundland, Canada. Between 3 and
5 p.m. local time. Witnesses: three ground crewmen, including
Mr. Leidy, for Pan American Airways. Watched briefly while one
translucent disc- or wheel-shaped object flew very fast, leaving
a dark blue trail and then ascended and cut a path through the
clouds.

July 29, 1947; Hamilton Air Base, California. 2:50 p.m. PDT.
Witnesses: Assistant Base Operations Officer Capt. William
Rhyerd, ex-AAF B-29 pilot Ward Stewart. Watched for unknown
length of time while two round, shiny, white objects with
estimated 15-25 foot diameters, flew 3-4 times the apparent speed
of a P-80, also in sight. One object flew straight and level;
the other weaved from side-to-side like an escort fighter.

Sept. 3, 1947; Oswego, Oregon. 12:15 p.m. PDT. Witness:
housewife Mrs. Raymond Dupui. Watched for unknown length of time
as 12-15 round, silver objects flew an unstated pattern.

Oct., 1947; Dodgeville, Wisconsin. 11
unnamed civilian man. Watched for 1 hour while an undescribed
object flew counterclockwise circles.

Oct. 14, 1947; 11 mi. NNE of Cave Creek, Arizona. Noon MDT.
Witnesses: ex-AAF fighter pilot J.L. Clark, civilian pilot
Anderson, third man. Watched 45-60 seconds while one 3-foot
“flying wing”-shaped object, which looked black against the white
clouds and red against the blue sky, flew straight at an
estimated 380 m.p.h., at 8-10,000 feet, from NW to SE.

April 5, 1948; Holloman AFB, New Mexico. Afternoon. Witnesses:
Geophysics Lab balloon observers Alsen, Johnson, Chance. Two
irregular, round, white or golden objects. One made three loops
then rose and disappeared rapidly; the other flew in a fast arc
to the west during the 3O^second sighting.

July 29, 1948: Indianapolis, Indiana. 9:88 a.m. witness*:
James Toney, Robert Huggins, both employees of a rug cleaning
firm. One shiny aluminum object, shaped something like an
airplane’s propeller, with 10-12 small cups protruding from
either blade. Estimated size 6-8′ long, 1.5-2′ wide. The object
glided across the road a few hundred feet in front of their
vehicle and apparently went down in a wooded area. Sighting
lasted a few seconds.

July 31, 1948; Indianapolis, Indiana. 8:25 a.m. Witnesses: Mr.
and Mrs. Vernon Swigert; he was an electrician. Object was
shaped like a cymbal, or domed disc; about 20′ across and 6-8′
thick, and was white without any shine. It flew straight and
level from horizon to horizon in about 10 seconds, shimmering in
the sun as if spinning.

July or August, 1948; vicinity of Marion, Virginia. Shortly
after sunset. Witness: Max Abbott, flying a Bellanca Cruisair
four-passenger private airplane. A single bright white light
accelerated and turned up a valley.

Sept. 23, 1948; San Pablo, California. 12 noon. Witnesses:
Sylvester Bentham and retired U.S. Army Col. Horace Eakins. Two
objects: one, a buff or grey rectangle with vertical lines; the
other a translucent “amoeba” with a dark spot near the center.
The arms of the “amoeba” undulated. Both objects travelled very
fast.

Oct. 15, 1948; Fusuoka, Japan. 11:05 p.m. Witnesses: pilot
Halter and radar operator Hemphill of a P-61 “Black Widow” night
fighter. Up to six objects tracked on radar, only one seen
visually. Dull or dark object shaped like a dirigible with a
flat bottom and clipped tail end. Six seen on radar separately
Pilot attempted to close on visual object, but it dove away fast.

Dec. 3, 1948; Fairfield-Suisan AFB, California. 8:15 p.m.
Witness: USAF Sgt., control tower operator. One round, white
light flew for 25 seconds with varying speed, bouncing motion,
and finally a rapid erratic climb.

Jan. 4, 1949; Hickam Field, Hawaii. 2 p.m. Witness: USAF pilot
Capt. Paul Storey, on ground. one flat white, elliptical object
with a matte top circled while oscillating to the right and left,
and then sped away.

Jan. 27, 1949; Cortez-Bradenton, Florida. 10:20 p.m. Witnesses:
Capt. Sames, acting chief of the Aircraft Branch, Eglin AFB, and
Mrs. Sames. They watched for 25 minutes while a cigar-shaped
object as long as two Pullman cars and having seven lighted
square windows and throwing sparks, descended and then climbed
with a bouncing motion at an estimated 400 m.p.h.

March 17, 1949; Camp Hood, Texas. 7:52 p.m. Witnesses: guards
of the 2nd Armored Division. While awaiting the start of a
flare firing, they watched, for an hour, while eight large,
green, red and white flare-like objects flew in generally
straight lines.

April 3, 1949; Dillon, Montana. 11:55 a.m. Witnesses:
construction company owner Gosta Miller and three other unnamed
persons. One object shaped like two plates attached
face-to-face; matte bottom, bright aluminum top; 20′ diameter,
4-5′ thickness. It rocked or rotated in six cycles, descended,
rocked, flew, rocked; all this was very fast.

April 4, 1949; Merced, California. 10:20 p.m. witness: William
Parrott, former Air Force pilot and major. One generally round
object with a curved bottom and dull coloring. The object gave
off a clicking sound until overhead. Parrott’s dog reacted. 35
seconds.

April 24, 1949; Arrey, New Mexico. l0:30 a.m. Witnesses:
General Mills meteorologist and balloon expert C.B. Moore and
others on a balloon launch crew. One white, round ellipsoid,
about 2.5 times as long as wide.

April 28, 1949; Tucson, Arizona. 5:45 p.m. Witnesses: Howard
Hann, Mr. Hubert, Tex Keahey. One bright, sausage-shaped object
was observed for 40 minutes while it rolled and flew fast.

May 5, 1949; Ft. Bliss, Texas. 11:40 a.m. Witnesses: Army
officers Maj. Day, Maj. Olhausen, Capt. Vaughn. Two oblong white
discs, flying at an estimated 200-250 m.p.h., made a shallow turn
during the 30-50 second observation.

May 6, 1949; Livermore, California. 9:35 a.m. Witness: C. G.
Green. Two shiny, disc-like objects rotated around each other
and banked. Then one shot upwards with a grey trail and rejoined
the other. The sighting lasted 5 minutes.

May 9, 1949; Tucson, Arizona. 2:30 p.m. Witness: M/Sgt. Troy
Putnam. Two round, flat silvery objects, estimated to be 25′ in
diameter, flew 750-1,000 m.p.h. in a banked but steady manner.

May 27, 1949; South-central Oregon. 2:25 p.m. Witness: Joseph
Shell, ferrying SNJ trainer for North American Aviation, from Red
Bluff, California, to Burns, Oregon. Five to eight oval objects,
twice as long as wide, and 1/5 as thick. They flew in trail
formation, with an interval equal to 3-4 times their length,
except that the second and third were closer together.

July 24, 1949; Mountain Home, Idaho. 12 noon. Witness: Henry
Clark, manager of a flying service, flying a Piper Clipper.
Seven delta-shaped objects, 35-55′ in span, 20-30′ long, 2-5′
thick; light colored except for a 12′ diameter dark circle at the
rear of each. They flew in a tight formation of twos with one
behind, and made a perfect, but unbanked, turn. During the
10 minute sighting, they displayed decreasing smooth
oscillations. Clark’s engine ran rough during the sighting, and
upon landing was found to have all its spark plugs burned out.

July 30, 1949; Mt. Hood, Oregon. 9 p.m. Witnesses: Northwest
Airlines Capt. Thrush, two Portland control tower operators, and
one flying instructor. One object with one white light and two
red lights, maneuvered and hovered.

Feb 5, 1950; Teaticket, Massachusetts. 5:10 p.m. Witnesses:
Marvin Odom, former U.S. Navy, USAF Lt. Philip
Foushee, pilot from Otis AFB, and two others. Two thin,
illuminated cylinders, one of which dropped a fireball,
maneuvered together and then disappeared high and fast after 5
minutes.

Feb. 24, 1950; Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1:55 p.m. Witnesses:
Municipal Airport Weather Observers Luther McDonald, Harrison
Manson. One white, slightly elongated oval was watched for 1.5
minutes through a theodolite while it flew straight and level.

Feb. 25, 1950; Los Alamos, New Mexico. 3:55 p.m. Witnesses:
Twelve Atomic Energy Commission security inspectors. One
cylinder with tapered ends, silver and flashing, flew slow and
hen fast, fluttered and oscillated, and changed course.
observations by individuals varied from 3 seconds to 2 minutes.

arch 3, 1950; Selfridge AFB, Michigan. 11:05 p.m. Witness:
st Lt Frank Mattson. One intense, dull yellowish light
descended vertically, then flew straight and level very fast for
4 minutes.

March 20, 1950; Stuggart, Arkansas. 9:26 p.m. Witnesses:
Chicago & Southern Airlines Capt. Jack Adams, First Officer G. W.
Anderson, Jr. One 100′ circular disc with 9-12 portholes along
the lower side emitting a soft purple light, and a light at the
top which flashed 3 times in 9 seconds, flew at not less than
1,000 m.p.h. It was seen for 25-35 seconds.

March 27, 1980; Motobo, Okinawa. 10:30 a.m. Witness: USAF
radar operator Cpl. Bolfango. Tracked on radar for 2 minutes
while it was stationary and then moved at 500 m.p.h.. Visual
observation not detailed, only mentioned in summary.

March 28, 1950; Santiago, Chile. 3:15 p.m. Witness: M/Sgt.
Patterson, of the office of the U.S. Air Attache. One white
object observed for 5-10 seconds through binoculars while it flew
high and fast, crossing 30^ of sky.

March 29, 1950; Marrowbore Lake, Tennessee. 7 a.m. Witnesses:
real estate salesmen Whiteside and Williams. Six-twelve dark
objects shaped like 300-lb. bombs, estimated 5 feet long. Flew
500 m.p.h. and descended, making a noise like wind blowing
through the trees.

April 8, 1950; Kokomo, Indiana. 2 a.m. Witness: Earl Baker.
One grey metallic disc, 50′ in diameter, 15′ thick; top-shaped
with a “conning tower” at the top and three ports on the rim
giving off a blue light. It hovered for 2 minutes, then flew
away. Baker aroused from sleep by his dog.

April 14, 1950; Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey. 2:30 p.m. Witness:
Army M/Sgt. James. Four rectangular, amber objects, about 3′ by
4′. changed speed and direction rapidly; the group of objects
rose and fell during the 3-4 minute sighting.

May 7, 1950; Nine miles sough of Ely, Nevada. 6:45 p.m.
Witnesses: Mr. and Mrs. George Smith and their grandson. One
silvery white object hovered at 100′ altitude, moved back and
forth for 10 minutes and then flew up and away. Note in case
file: “No investigation.”

June 27, 1950; Texarkana, Texas. 7:50 a.m. Witnesses: Terrell
and Yates, employees of Red River Arsenal. One object, bright,
shaped like two dishpans face-to-face, flew straight and level,
fast for 4-5 seconds.

July 13, 1950; Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. 5 p.m. Witnesses:
two skilled Arsenal employees including Mr. Washburn. one
object, shaped like a bowtie, and like polished aluminum. Flew
straight and level, then one triangle rotated 1/4 turn in the
opposite direction and returned to its original position. The
object then made a right-angle turn and accelerated away after at
least 30 seconds.

Aug. 4, 1950; approx. 100 mi. SE of New York City (39′ 35′ N.,
72′ 24.5′ W.). 10 a.m. EDT. Witnesses: Master Nils Lewring,
Chief Mate Jacob Koelwyn, Third Mate, of M/V Marcala. One 10′
cylindrical object at 50-100′ altitude, flying with a churning or
rotary motion, accelerated at end of 15 second sighting.

Aug. 20, 1950; Nicosia, Cyprus. 1:30 p.m. Witnesses: USAF MATS
liaison officer Lt. William Ghormley, Col. W. V. Brown, Lt.
col. L.w. Brauer. One small, round, bright object flew fast,
straight and level for 15-20 seconds.

Aug. 25, 1950; approx. 250 mi. SW of Bermuda (29′ 40′ N., 67*
28′ W.). 8 p.m. Witness: B-29 radarman S/Sgt. William Shaffer.
Radar observation, plus possible blue streak 3 minutes later.
B-29 followed unidentified target, then passed it at l/4-mile
distance, target followed for 5 minutes, then passed B-29 and
sped away. Total time of tracking: 20 minutes.

Aug. 30, 1950; Sandy Point, Newfoundland, Canada. 1:30 p.m.
Witnesses: three local employees, including Kaeel and Alexander,
of the Air Force Base. A dark, barrel-shaped object with a pole
down from it into the water, flew at 3-5 m.p.h. and 15-20′
altitude for 5 minutes.

Sept. 3, 1950; Spokane, Washington. 2 p.m. Witnesses: Maj R.J.
Gardiner, Mrs. Gardiner and neighbor (former saw three objects,
others saw one). Metallic bronze discs, 20-30′ long, 2-6′ thick.
Moved independently and erratically for 5 minutes.

Sept. 20, 1950; Kit Carson, Colorado. 10:49 a.m. Witness
identified only as a “reliable source”. Two large, round,
glowing objects and three smaller, internally lit objects. Two
hovered for 1 minute, moved, and three smaller ones came from
behind or within the two larger objects, and all sped upward and
away.

Sept. 21, 1950; Provincetown, Massachusetts. 9:52 a.m. Witness:
M.I.T. research associate and Air National Guard Maj. M.H. Ligda.
Radar tracking of one object during M.I.T tracking of USAF flight
of F-84 or F-86 jet fighters. Object speed was 22 miles/minute
(l,200 m.p.h.), made turn of 11-12 gs acceleration during 1
minute observation.

Oct. 15, 1950; Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 3:20 p.m. Atomic Energy
Commission Trooper Rymer, J. Moneymaker, Capt. Zarzecki. Two
shiny silver objects shaped like bullet or bladder. They dove
with a smoke trail and one vanished. The other hovered at 5-6,
altitude, 50′ away, left and returned several times somewhat
further away.

Oct. 15, 1950; Pope AFB, North Carolina. Witness: Daniel.
Listed as “unidentified” in folder index, but no supporting data
could be found.

Oct 15, 1950; Pope AFB, North Carolina. Witness: Woodward.
Same as previous observation.

Oct. 23, 1950; Bonlee, North Carolina. 12:42 p.m. Witness:
ex-USAF pilot Frank Risher. One aluminum object shaped like a
dirigible or Convair C-99 cargo plane, with 3 portholes, arrived
from southeast, hovered 3-5 seconds and flew away to the south-
south-east at end of 40 second sighting.

Nov. 5, 1950, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 11:55 a.m. Witness:
Fairchild Aircraft illustrator Don Patrick. One translucent
object, light grey with dark core, shaped like a pear or bean.
Flew for 5-10 minutes with rapid, darting movements.

Dec. 2, 1950; Nanyika, Kenya. 10:50 a.m. Mr. and Mrs. L. Scott.
One pearly, iridescent object with a flattened top, spun while
hovering and made a sound like bees buzzing. Only data in files
was from East African “Standard” newspaper.

Dec. 6, 1950; Ft. Myers, Florida. 5 p.m. Witnesses: former
aircraft purchasing agent Harry Lamp and four boys, using
lO-power binoculars. One 75′ object, 3-4′ thick, bubble on top,
silver with a red rim having two white and two orange jets along
it. The center revolved when the object hovered; then it flew
away very fast.

Dec. 11, 1950; l0 mi. NW of Gulcana, Alaska. 10:13 p.m.
Witnesses: crew of Northwest Air Lines flight 802. Two white
flashes, followed by a dark cloud which rose and split in two.

Jan. 8, 1951; South of Ft. Worth, Texas. 10:45 p.m. Witnesses:
Mr. and Mrs. W.J. Boggus, plus unidentified drivers and
passengers in other cars stopped to watch. Two groups of red and
green lights in triangular formations were stationary and then
moved.

Jan. 12, 1951, Ft. Benning, Georgia. 10 p.m. Witness: U.S.
Army 2nd Lt. A.C. Hale. One light with a fan-shaped wake
remained motionless like a star about 20 minutes and then sped
away.

Jan 16, 1951; Artesia, New Mexico. Time unknown. Witnesses:
Two members of a balloon project from the General Mills .
Aeronautical Research Laboratory, the manger of the Artesia
Airport, and three pilots. The balloon crew was observing their
110′ balloon at an altitude of 112,000′ when a dull white, round
object was spotted. It appeared larger than the balloon, but
made no movement. Later, the balloon crew and the others saw
two objects from the airport; flying side-by-side, they circled
the balloon and flew away to the northeast. The second
observation lasted about 40 seconds. Note: there is confusion
over the date of this case, with some USAF records showing it as
1952; however, 1951 appears to be correct.

Feb. 1, 1951; Johnson Air Base, Japan. 5:10 p.m. Witnesses:
pilot and radar operator of F-82 night fighter. One amber light
made three or four 360* turns to the right, reversed toward the
F-82 and then climbed out of sight.

Feb. 21, 1951; Durban, South Africa. 4:55 a.m. Witnesses:
three men in a truck, several other persons, none named. A dark
red, torpedo-shaped object with darker center, flew straight and
level.

Feb. 26, 1951; Ladd AFB, Alaska. 7:10 a.m. Witness: USAF Sgt.
J.B. Sells. One dull grey, metallic object, estimated to be 120′
long and 10-12′ thick, hovered, puffed smoke and sped away after
1-1.5 minutes. Note: may have been Feb. 25.

Mar. 10, 1951; Chinnampo, Korea. 9:51 a.m. Witnesses: crew of
USAF B-29 bomber, including scanners and tail gunner. A large
red-yellow glow burst and became blue-white. No further
information in files.

Mar. 13, 1951; McClellan AFB, California. 3:20 p.m. Witnesses:
USAF lst Lt. B.J. Hastie, Mrs. Rafferty. A cylinder with twin
tails, 200′ long and 90′ wide, turned north and flew at
incredible speed. Two minutes.

Mar. 15, 1951; New Delhi, India. 10:20 a.m. Witnesses: 25
members of a flying club, including the chief aerial engineer and
his two assistants. One metallic cigar-shaped object with white
exhaust which turned black when it accelerated to an estimated
1,000 m.p.h. and made a large loop. Seven minutes.

June 1, 1951; Niagara Falls, New York. 4:20 a.m. Witnesses:
M/Sgt H.E. Sweeney, 2 enlisted men. One glowing yellow-orange,
saucer-shaped object with arc-shaped wings, flew straight up.
Seen for 30-40 seconds.

July 24, 1951; Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 7:10 Witnesses:
Hanscom AFB Operations Officer Capt. Cobb, Cpl. Fein. One
100-200′ tubular object, 5 times long as it was wide, with fins
at one end, and colored greyish with many black spots. Flew
800-1,000 m.p.h. at 1-2,000′ altitude, leaving a faint swath. 20
seconds.

Aug. 25, 1951; Albuquerque, New Mexico. 9:58 p.m. Witnesses:
Sandia Base Security Guard Hugh Young and wife. A flying wing-
shaped craft passed over their heads at an estimated 800-1,000′
altitude with no sound. Size estimated at 1.5 times wingspan of
B-36 bomber,or 350′. Dark, chordwise stripes on underside, and
6-8 pairs of soft, glowing lights on trailing edge of “wing”.
Speed estimated at 300-400 m.p.h., object seen for about 30
seconds.

Aug. 31, ; Matador, Texas. 12:45 p.m. Witnesses: Mrs. Tom
Tilson, one or two other women, all apparently of excellent
reputations. One pear-shaped object with a length of a B-29
fuselage (100′), aluminum or silver with a port or some type of
aperture on the side. It moved with smaller end forward,
drifting slowly at about 150′ altitude, then headed up in a
circular fashion and out of sight after a few seconds.

Sept. 6, 1951; Claremont, California. 7:20 p.m. (not really
clear). Witnesses: S/Sgt W.T. Smith, M/Sgt L.L. Duel (?). Six
orange lights in an irregular formation, flew straight and level
into a coastal fog bank after 3-4 minutes.

Sept. 14, 1951; Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada. 9:30 p.m.
Witnesses: T/Sgt W.B. Maupin, Cpl. J.W. Green. Three objects
tracked on radar. Two were on a collision course, then one
evaded to the right upon the request, by radio, of one of the
radar operators! No aircraft were known to be in the area. A
third unidentified track then joined the first two. More than 15
minutes.

Oct. 2, 1951; Columbus, Ohio. 6 p.m. Witness: Battelle
Memorial Institute graduate physicist Howard Cross. One bright
oval with a clipped tail flew straight and level, fading into the
distance after 1 minute.

Oct. 3, 1951; Kadena, Okinawa. 10:27 p.m. Witnesses: radar
operators Sgt. M.W. Watson and Pvt. Gonzales and one other
Sergeant. One large, sausage-shaped blip tracked at an estimated
4,800 m.p.h.

Oct. 9, 1951; Terre Haute, Indiana. 1:42 p.m. Witness: CAA
Chief Aircraft Communicator Roy Messmore at Hulman Municipal
Airport. One round silver object flew directly overhead,
reaching the horizon in 15 seconds. Note: a very similar
incident happened 3 minutes later near Paris, Illinois (15 miles
NW) and was also listed as “unidentified” for several years, but
was eventually reclassified.

Oct. 11, 1951; Minneapolis, Minnesota. 6:30 a.m. Witnesses:
General Mills balloon researchers, including aeronautical
engineer J.J. Kaliszewski, aerologist C.B. Moore, pilot Dick
Reilly in the air, and Doug Smith on the ground. The flight crew
saw the first object, a brightly glowing one with a dark
underside and a halo around it. The object arrived high and
fast, then slowed and made slow climbing circles for about two
minutes, and finally sped away to the east. Soon they saw
another one, confirmed by ground observers using a theodolite,
which sped across the sky. Total time first object was seen was
5 minutes, second was a few seconds.

Nov. 18, 1951; Washington, D.C. 3:20 a.m. Witnesses: Crew of
Capital Airlines DC-4 Fliqht 610, Andrews AFB Senior air traffic
controller Tom Selby. One object with several lights, followed
the DC-4 for about 20 minutes and then turned back.

Nov. 24, 1951; Mankato, Minnesota. 33:53 p.m. Witnesses: USAF
or ANG pilots W.H. Fairbrother and D.E. Stewart in P-51 Mustangs.
One milky white object shaped like Northrop flying wing (broad,
slightly swept-back wing with no fuselage or tail). Estimated 8′
span. Flew straight and level for 5 seconds.

Dec. 7, 1951; Sunbury, Ohio. 4:30 p.m. Witness: amateur
astronomer Carl Loar. One silvery sphere seen through telescope.
Two specks sighted at sides, object seemed to explode and was
replaced by a dark cloud and many specks. 30 minutes.

Dec. 7, 1951; Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 8:15 a.m. Witness: Atomic
Energy Commission guard J.H. Collins. One 20′ square object,
white-grey but not shiny flew above ridge to clouds and back
again twice, taking 30-40 seconds each time.

Feb. 11, 1952; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3 a.m. Witnesses:
Capt. G.P. Arns and Maj. R.J. Gedson flying a Beech AT-ll
trainer. One yellow-orange comet-shaped object pulsed flame for
1-2 seconds of a 1 minute straight and level flight.

Feb. 23, 1952; over North Korea. 11:15 p.m. Witness:
Captain/B-29 navigator. One bluish cylinder, three times long as
wide, with a tail and rapid pulsations, came in high and fast,
made several turns and levelled out under B-29 which was evading
mild antiaircraft fire. 45 second sighting.

March 20, 1952; Centreville, Maryland. 10:42 p.m. Witnesses:
WWl/WW2 veteran A.D. Hutchinson and son. One dull orange-yellow
saucer-shaped light flew straight and level very fast for 30
seconds.

March 23, 1952; Yakima, Washington. 6:56 and 7 p.m.
Witnesses: pilot and radar operator of F-94 jet interceptor. On
either occasion, a red fireball increased in brightness and then
faded over 45 second span. Stationary both times. Note:

Project Blue Book Status Report #7 (May 31, 1952) says target was
also tracked by ground radar at 78 knots (90 m.p.h.) at 22,500′
and 25,000′ altitude.

March 24, 1952; 60 miles west of Pt. Concepcion, California.
8:45 a.m. Witnesses: B-29 navigator and radar operator. One
target tracked for 20-30 seconds at estimated 3,000 m.p.h.

March 29, 1952; 20 miles north of Misawa AFB, Japan. 11:20 a.m.
Witness: Brigham, pilot of AT-6 trainer. One small, very thin,
shiny metallic disc flew alongside the AT-6, then made a pass at
an F-84 jet fighter, flipped on edge, fluttered 20′ from the
F-84’s fuselage and flipped in the slipstream…all in 10
seconds.

April 4, 1952; Duncanville, Texas. 7:30 p.m. Witnesses: two
radar operators of the 147th AC&W Squadron. One object was
tracked for one minute by radar at an estimated 2,160 m.p.h.

April 5, 1952; Phoenix, Arizona. l0:40 a.m. Witnesses: Mr. and
Mrs. L.G. Ryan, R.L. Stokes, D. Schook. One large, dull grey
circular object, followed by two more, flew straight and level at
high speed.

April 5, 1952; Miami, Florida. 9:15 p.m. Witnesses: L.E.
VanDercar and 9 year old son. Four dark circular objects with
mostly fuzzy edges, crossed face of Moon; each was half the
apparent diameter of Moon. 2:59 p.m. Witness: H.L. Russell.

April 6, 1952; Temple, Texas. 2:59 p.
50-75 grey-white discs changed position within formation
continually, tilted in unison every 12-15 seconds during 3.8
minute sighting.

April 12, 1952; North Bay, Ontario, Canada. 9:30 p.m.
Witnesses: Royal Canadian Air Force Warrant Officer E.H.
Rossell, Flight Sgt. R. McRae. One round amber object flew fast,
stopped, reversed direction, climbed away at 30′ angle during a 2
minute observation.

April 14, 1952; LaCrosse, Wisconsin. 12:35 p.m. Witness:
unidentified CAL airline pilot. Several light colored objects
flew in V-formation. No further details in files.

April 14, 1952; Memphis, Tennessee. 6:34 p.m. Witnesses: U.S.
Navy pilots Lt. jg. Blacky, Lt. jg. O’Neil. One inverted bowl,
3′ long and 1′ high, with vertical slots, flew fast, straight and
level, 100 yards from observers’ aircraft for 45-60 seconds.

April 15, 1952; Santa Cruz, California. 7:40 p.m. Witness: Mr.
Hayes, brother of Master Sergeant. Two faint objects observed
flying fast along the horizon for 6-8 seconds, using 20x spotting
telescope.

April 17, 1952; Longmeadow, Massachusetts. 8:30 p.m. Witnesses:
S.B. Brooks, chemical engineer J.A. Eaton. One round, deep
orange object flew fast and erratic, occasionally emitting a
shaft of light to the rear during a 40 minute sighting.

April 17, 1952; Yuma, Arizona. 3:05 p.m. Witnesses: group of
Army weather observation students, including several graduate
engineers. One flat-white, circular object flew with an
irregular trajectory and a brief trail, for about 7 seconds.

April 18, 1952; Yuma, Arizona. Time unknown. Witnesses: two
Army weather observation students. One flat-white circular
object flew for 5-10 seconds in a very erratic manner.

April 18, 1952; Bethesda, Maryland. l1:30 a.m. Witnesses: R.
Poerstal and three other men. Seven to nine circular,
orange-yellow lights in a 40^ V-formation flew overhead silently
for 4-8 seconds, from south to north.

April 18, 1952; Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Canada. l0:l0 p.m.
Witness: reporter Chic Shave. One round, yellow-gold object
flew south and returned during 1.5 minute sighting.

April 18, 1952; 50 miles northwest of Kyushu, Japan (129* 51′ E.,
34′ 19′ N.). Witness: one radar operator. Tracked unidentified
target for 1 minute at 2,700 m.p.h.

April 18, 1952; Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Canada. 4 a.m.
Witness: janitor C. Hamilton. One yellow-gold object made a
sharp turn and left a short, dark trail during l minute sighting.

April 22, 1952; Naha AFB, Okinawa. 99 p.m. Witnesses: crew of
B-29 bomber, on ground. One elliptical object, followed by two
and then another two, each with a white light that blinked every
1-2 seconds as they performed erratic maneuvers for 10 minutes.

April 24, 1952; Bellevue Hill, Vermont. 5 a.m. Witnesses: crew
of USAF C-124 transport plane. Three circular, bluish objects in
loose “fingertip” formation twice flew parallel to airplane
during 3-4 minute period.

April 24, 1952; Milton, Massachusetts. 2:30 p.m. Witnesses:
three Cambridge Research Center electronics engineers, one named
Buruish. Two flat, red squares flew wobbly in level flight,
climbed, levelled out during 1.5 minute observation.

April 24, 1952; Clovis, New Mexico. 8:10 p.m. Witness: USAF
light Surgeon Maj. E.L. Ellis. Many orange-amber lights,
sometimes separate, sometimes fused, behaved erratically. Speed
varied from motionless to very fast during 5 minute sighting.

April 27, 1952; Roseville, Michigan. 4:15 p.m. Witnesses: H.A.
Freytag and three male relatives, including a minister. One
silver oval rolled, descended and stopped. Two silver cigar-
shaped objects appeared, one departing to the east and one to the
west. A third silver cigar-shaped object flew by at high speed.
Sightings lasted 45 minutes.

April 27, 1952; Yuma, Arizona. 8:30 p.m. Witnesses: M/Sgt. and
Mrs. G.S. Porter (he was off-duty control tower operator).
Bright red or flame-colored discs, appearing as large as fighter
planes. Seven sightings of one disc, one of two in formation
during 2 hours. All seen below 11,000′ overcast.

April 29, 1952; Marshall, Texas. 3:30 p.m. Witness: private
pilot R.R. Weidman. One round, white object which flew straight,
with a side-to-side oscillation for 1.5 minutes.

April 29, 1952; Goodland, Kansas. 100 p.m. Witness: B-29
bombardier Lt. R.H. Bauer. One white fan-shaped light pulsed 3-4
times per second for 2 seconds.

May 1, 1952; Moses Lake, Washington. 5:32 a.m. Witnesses: Two
Atomic Energy Commission employees, Eggan and Shipley. One
silver object without wings flew straight and level for 1.5
minutes.

May 1, 1952; George AFB, California. 10:50 a.m. Witnesses:
three men on the arms range, plus one Lt. Colonel 4 miles away.
Five flat-white discs about the diameter of a C-47’s wingspan
(95′) flew fast, made a 90^ turn in a formation of three in front
and two behind, and darted around, for 15-30 seconds.

May 5, 1952; Tenafly, New Jersey. 10:45 p.m. Witness: Mrs.
M.M. Judson. Six or seven translucent, cream-yellow objects. One
moved in an ellipse, while the others moved in and out.

May 7, 1952; Keesler AFB, Mississippi. 12:15 p.m. Witnesses:
Capt. Morris, a Master Sergeant, a Staff Sergeant, and an Airman
First Class. Ten times, an aluminum or silver cylindrical object
was seen to dart in and out of the clouds during a 5-10 minute
period.

May 9, 1952; George AFB, California. 5:20 p.m. Witness: A/lc
G.C. Grindeland. One dull white, arrowhead-shaped object flew
straight and level for 10 seconds.

May 10, 1952; Ellenton, South Carolina. 10:45 p.m. Witnesses:
4 duPont employees at the Savannah River nuclear plant. Up to
four yellow, disc-shaped objects were seen on five occasions
between 10:45 and shortly after 11:15.

May 14, 1952; Mayaquez, Puerto Rico. 7 p.m. Witnesses:
Attorney and ex-USAF pilot Mr. Stipes, Sr. Garcia-Mendez. Two
shining orange spheres: one was stationary, while the other
darted away and back for 30 minutes.

May 20, 1952; Houston, Texas. l0:l0 p.m. Witnesses: USAF
pilots Capt. J. Spurgin and Capt. BB. Stephan. One bright or
white oval object moved from side-to-side while making a gradual
turn for 90 seconds.

May 25, 1952; Walnut Lake, Michigan. 9:15 p.m. Witnesses:
seven persons, including John Hoffman, his family and friends.
One large white circular object having dark sections on its rim,
flew straight and level for 30 minutes, appearing red when behind
a cloud.

May 28, 1952; Saigon, French Indo China. 10:30 a.m. Witnesses:
many in crowd watching a ceremony. One white-silver disc-shaped
object flew straight and fast for 2 minutes.

May 28, 1952; Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1:45-2:40 p.m.
Witnesses: two city fire department employees. Two circular
objects–one shiny silver and the other orange or light brown–
were seen three times performing fast maneuvers.

May 29, 1952; San Antonio, Texas. 7 p.m. Witness: USAF pilot
Maj. D.W. Feuerstein, on ground. One bright tubular object
tilted from horizontal to vertical for 8 minutes, then slowly
returned to horizontal, again tilted vertical, accelerated,
appeared to lengthen and turned red. The entire sighting lasted
14 minutes.

June 1, 1952; Rapid City, South Dakota. 6 p.m. Witnesses:
A/lc Beatty and two civilians. At least five long silver objects
flew in a neat box formation with a leader for 15-20 seconds.

June 1, 1952; Walla , Washington. 1 p.m. Witness:
ex-military pilot Reserve Maj. W.C. Vollendorf. One oval object
with a “definite airfoil” performed a fast climb for 7 seconds.

June l, 1952; Soap Lake, Washington. 3+ p.m. Witness: Ray
Lottman. Three glimmering objects flew straight and level for 10
minutes.

June 2, 1952; Bayview, Washington. 5:02 p.m. Witness: Larry
McWade. One purple object seen for unknown length of time. No
further information in files.

June 2, 1952; Fulda, West Germany. Time unknown. Witness: lst
Lt. John Hendry, photo-navigator on an RB-26C reconnaissance
bomber. One porcelain-white object flew very fast for an unknown
length of time.

June 5, 1952; Lubbock, Texas. 11 p.m. Witnesses: Dan Benson,
Mr. Bacon. A total of eight yellow circular objects, like large
stars, were seen during 45 minutes. The first two were in a
trail formation, the others were seen singly.

June 5, 1952; Albuquerque, New Mexico. 6:45 p.m. Witness:
S/Sgt T.H. Shorey. One shiny round object flew 5-6 times as fast
as an F-86 jet fighter for 6 seconds.

June 5, 1952; Offutt AFB, Omaha, Nebraska. 11 p.m. Witnesses:
2nd Lt. W.R. Soper, a Strategic Air Command top secret control
officer and former OSI agent; and two other persons. One bright
red object remained stationary for 4.5 minutes before speeding
away with a short tail.

June 6, 1952; Kimpo AFB, Korea. Case missing from official
files.

June 7, 1952; Albuquerque, New Mexico. 11:18 a.m. Witnesses:
crew of B-25 bomber #8840 at 11,500′. One rectangular aluminum
object, about 6’x4′, flew 250-300′ below the B-25.

June 8, 1952; Albuquerque, New Mexico. 10:50 a.m. Witnesses:
Mr. and Mrs. J.D. Markland. Four shiny objects flew straight and
level in a diamond formation.

June 9, 1952; Minneapolis, Minnesota. Case missing from official
files.

June 12, 1952; Ft. Smith, Arkansas. 7:30 p.m. Witnesses: U.S.
Army Major and Lt. Colonel, using binoculars. One orange ball
with a tail flew with a low angular velocity.

June 12, 1952; Marakesch, Morocco. 11:26 a.m. Witness: T/Sgt.
H.D. Adams, operating an SCR-584 radar set. One unidentified
blip tracked at 650 kts. (750 m.p.h.) at greater than 60,000′
altitude.

June 13, 1952; Middletown, Pennsylvania. 8:45 p.m. Witness:
R.S. Thomas, Olmstead AFB employee and former control tower
operator. One round, orange object travelled south, stopped for
1 second, turned east, stopped 1 second, and went down.

June 15, 1952; Louisville, Kentucky. 11:50 p.m. Witness:
Edward Duke, ex-U.S. Navy radar technician. One large, cigar-
shaped object with a blunt front, lit sides and a red stern,
maneuvered in a leisurely fashion for 15 minutes.

June 16, 1952; Walker AFB, New Mexico. 8:30 p.m. Witness: USAF
maintenance specialist S/Sgt. Sparks. Five or six greyish discs,
in a half-moon formation, flew at 500-600 m.p.h. for l minute.

June 17, 1952; McChord AFB, Washington. Between 7:30 and 10:20
p.m. Witnesses: many and varied. From one to five large
silver-yellow objects flew erratically, stopped and started for
about 15 minutes.

June 17, 1952; Cape Cod, Massachusetts. 1:28 a.m. Witness:
pilot of USAF F-94 jet interceptor. A light like a bright star
crossed the nose of the airplane while being observed for 15
seconds. No further information in the files.

June 18, 1952; Columbus, Wisconsin. 9 a.m. Witness: R.A.
Finger. One crescent-shaped object hovered for several seconds
and then sped away.

June 18, 1952; Walnut Lake, Michigan. 10 p.m. Witnesses:
Marron Hoffman and four relatives, using 4x binoculars. One
orange light was observed zigzagging and then hovering for an
unspecified length of time.

June 19, 1952; Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada. 2:37 a.m. Witness:
2nd Lt. A’Gostino and unidentified radar operator. One red light
turned white while wobbling. Radar tracked a stationary target
during the 1 minute sighting.

June 19, 1952; Yuma, Arizona. 2 p.m. Witness: USAF pilot John
Lane. One round, white object flew straight and level for 10
seconds.

June 20, 1952; Central Korea. 3:03 p.m. Witnesses: four Marine
Corps Captains and pilots of F4U-4B Corsair fighter planes. One
10-20′ white or silver oval object made a left-hand orbit at
terrific speed for 60 seconds.

June 21, 1952; Kelly AFB, Texas. 12:30 p.m. Witness: T/Sgt.
Howard Davis, flight engineer of B-29 bomber at 8,000′ altitude.
One flat object with a sharply pointed front and rounded rear;
white with a dark blue center and red rim, trailed sparks as it
dove past the B-29 at a distance of 500′, in l second.

June 22, 1952; Pyungthek, Korea. 10:45 p.m. Witnesses: Two
Marine Corps Sergeants. One 4 ft. diameter object dove at a
runway shooting red flames, hovered briefly over a hill, turned
180 , flashed twice and was gone.

June 23, 1952; Spokane, Washington. 4:05 p.m. Witness: Airport
weather observer Rex Thompson. One round disc with a metallic
shine flashed, and fluttered like a flipped coin for 5-7 minutes.

June 23, 1952; McChord AFB, Washington. 9 p.m. Witness: 2nd
Lt. K. Thompson. One very large light flew straight and level
for 10 minutes. No further information.

June 23, 1952; Kirksville, Missouri. Case missing from official
files.

June 23, 1952; Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 3:30 a.m. Witness:
secretary Martha Milligan. One bullet-shaped object with
burnt-orange exhaust flew straight and level for 30-60 seconds.

June 23, 1952; Owensboro, Kentucky. 10:00 a.m. Witness:
National Guard Lt. Col. O. L. Depp. Two objects looking like
“giant soap bubbles”, reflecting yellow and lavender colors, flew
in trail for 5 seconds.

June 23, 1952; Location unknown, but information came via Japan
Hq. “CV 4359”. 6:08 a.m. Witness: USAF pilot of the l8th
Fighter-Bomber Group. One black coin-shaped object, 15-20′ in
diameter, made an irregular descent.

June 25, 1952; Chicago, Illinois. 8:30 p.m. Witnesses: Mrs.
Norbury, Mr. Matheis. One bright yellow-white, egg-shaped object
which sometimes had a red tail, made seven circles in 1 1/2
hours.

June 25, 1982; Japan-Korea area. Case missing from official
files.

June 26, 1952; Terre Haute, Indiana. 2:45 a.m. Witness: USAF
2nd Lt. C. W. Povelites. Undescribed object flew at 600 m.p.h.
and then stopped. No further information in files.

June 26, 1952; Pottstown, Pennsylvania. 11:50 p.m. Witness:
assistant manager of airport. Three sightings of flashing
lights: two lights separated by 2 miles, with the leader
flashing steadily and the other irregularly; two similarly
flashing lights, but with l mile separation; finally a single
light. Speed estimated at 150-250 m.p.h.. Total of 1/2 hour.

June 27, 1952; Topeka, Kansas. 6:50 p.m. Witnesses: USAF pilot
2nd Lt. K. P. Kelly and wife. One pulsating red object which
changed shape from a circular to a vertical oval as it pulsed.
Was stationary for about 5 minutes, then went out.

June 28, 1952; Lake Kishkanoug, Wisconsin. 6 p.m. Witness: G.
Metcalfe. One silver-white sphere became an ellipse as it turned
and climbed away very fast. 10 seconds.

June 28, 1952; Nagoya, Japan. 4:10 p.m. Witness: Capt. T. W.
Barger, USAF electronics countermeasures officer. One dark blue
elliptical-shaped object with a pulsing border flew straight and
level at 700-800 m.p.h..

June 29, 1952; O’Hare Airport, Chicago, Illinois. 5:45 p.m.
witnesses: three USAF air policemen. One bright silver, flat
oval object surrounded by a blue haze, hovered, then moved very
fast to the right and to the left, and up and down for 45
minutes.

July 3, 1952; Selfridge AFB, Michigan. 4:15 a.m. Witnesses not
identified. Two big lights, estimated at 20′ diameter, flew
straight and level at tremendous speed.

July 3, 1952; Chicago, Illinois. 11:50 p.m. Witness: Mrs. J.
D. Arbuckle. Two bright pastel green discs flew straight and
level very fast for 6 seconds.

July 5, 1952; Norman, Oklahoma. 7:58 p.m. Witness: Oklahoma
State Patrolman Hamilton in State Patrol airplane. Three dark
discs hovered and then flew away, silhouetted against a dark
cloud. 15 seconds.

July 6-12, 1952; Elizabeth, New Jersey. 11:00 p.m. Witness:
Charles Muhr. Four pictures taken of some indistinct light which
was admittedly not seen visually, but which appeared on the
negatives.

July 9, 1952; Colorado Springs, Colorado. 12:45 p.m. Witness:
USAF pilot Maj. C. K. Griffin. One object shaped like an airfoil
less its trailing edge, luminous white, moved slowly and
erratically for 12 minutes.

July 9, 1952; Kutztown, Pennsylvania. 6:30 p.m. Witness:
farmer John Mittl. One aluminum, oval-shaped object changed
direction and attitude, finally tipping on end and departing
after 20 seconds. Case file includes three vague photographs.

July 9, 1952; Rapid City AFB, South Dakota. 3:35 p.m.
Witnesses: S/Sgt. D.P. Foster and three other persons. Three
times, a single white, disc-shaped object sped by, straight and
level, in 5 seconds.

July 12, 1952; Annapolis, Maryland. 3:30 p.m. Witness:
insurance company president William Washburn. Four large,
elliptical-shaped objects were seen to fly very fast, stop, turn
90* and fly away in 7-8 seconds. .

July 12, 1952; Kirksville, Missouri. 9 p.m. Witnesses: many
radar controllers who were military officers. Several big blips
tracked on radar at 1,500 kts. (1,700 m.p.h.). There was no
visual sighting.

July 14, 1952; Norfolk, Virginia. 8:12 p.m. Witnesses: Pan
American Airways First Officer William Nash, Second Officer
William Fortenberry. Eight large, round, glowing red objects
maneuvered below their airliner, in formation.

July 15, 1952; West Palm Beach, Florida. 10:10 p.m. Witnesses:
J. Antoneff and two other persons. One discus-shaped object,
greyish, except when hovering, when it appeared muddy. Hovered
over Palm Beach International Airport, then followed an SA-l6
twin-engined amphibian and flew away after 40-60 seconds.

July 16, 1952; Beverly, Massachusetts. 9:35 a.m. Witness: U.S.
Coast Guard photographer Shell Alpert. Four roughly elliptical
blobs of light in formation photographed through window of photo
lab.

July 17, 1952; White Plains, New York. 3:10 p.m. Witness: Mrs.
Florence Daley. Two round objects, bluish-white with brighter
rims, flew in formation, making a sound like bombers, only
softer. Note: Later, the witness stated she heard many feminine
voices coming from the objects.

July 17, 1952; Lockbourne, Ohio. 11 a.m. Witness: Air National
Guard employees. One light like a big star was seen for 3 hours,
but disappeared when an aircraft approached. Also seen the
night of July 20, 22 and 23.

July 18, 1952; Lockbourne, Ohio. 9:10 p.m. Witnesses: T/Sgt.
Mahone, A/3c Jennings. One amber-colored, elliptical-shaped
object with a small flame at the rear, periodically increased in
brightness. It moved very fast for l 1/2 minutes, giving off a
resonant beat sound.

July 18, 1952; Miami, Florida. 11 a.m. Witnesses: E. R. Raymer
and daughter. One opaque, silvery bubble flew very fast at a
right-angle to the wind direction for 10 seconds.

July 18, 1952; Patrick AFB, Florida. 9:45 p.m. Witnesses:
three USAF officers and four enlisted men. Over an hour period,
a series of hovering and maneuvering red-orange lights were
observed moving in a variety of directions.

July 19, 1952; Williston, North Dakota. 2:55 a.m. Witness: one
experienced civilian pilot. One elliptical-shaped object with a
light fringe, travelled down fast, made a 360* and then a 180*
turn in 5 minutes.

July 19, 1952; Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. 11:35 p.m. Witnesses:
USAF pilot Capt. C.J. powley and wife. Two star-like lights
maneuvered, hovered and sped for 5-7 minutes.

July 20, 1952; Lavalette, New Jersey. 12:20 a.m. Witness:
Seton Hall Univ. chemistry professor Dr. A.B. Spooner. Two large
orange-yellow lights with some dull red coloring flew in trail,
turned and circled for 5-6 minutes.

July 21, 1952; Weisbaden, West Germany. 6:30 p.m. Witnesses:
USAF pilot Capt. E.E. Dougher, WAF Lt. J.J. Stong, situated miles
apart. Four bright yellowish lights were seen by Dougher to
separate, with two climbing and two flying away level in the
opposite direction. Stong watched two reddish lights fly in
opposite directions. Sightings lasted about 10-15 minutes.

July 21, 1952; San Marcos AFB, Texas. 10:40 p.m. Witnesses:
one Lieutenant, two Staff Sergeants, three airmen. One blue
circle with a blue trail was seen to hover and then accelerate to
near-sonic speed (700+ m.p.h.) after 1 minute.

July 21, 1952; Converse, Texas. 4:30 p.m. Witness: wife of
USAF Capt. J. B. Neal. One elongated, fuselage-shaped object
flew straight and level, made a right-angle turn and went out of
sight at more than 300 m.p.h., all in 3-5 seconds.

July 21, 1952; Rockville, Indiana. 8:10 p.m. Witnesses: one
military officer, two enlisted men. One aluminum, delta-shaped
object with a vertical fin, flew straight and level, and then
hovered during a 3 minute sighting.

July 22, 1952; Holyoke, Massachusetts. After midnight. Witness:
Mrs. A. Burgess. One round, yellow, flashing light went
downward. No further information in files.

July 22, 1952; Los Alamos, New Mexico. 10:50 a.m. Witnesses:
control tower operator Don Weins, and two pilots for Carco.
Eight large, round, bright aluminum objects flew straight and
level, then darted around erratically during 25 minutes.

July 22, 1952; Uvalde, Texas. 2:46 p.m. Witness: Don Epperly,
Trans Texas Airlines station manager and weather observer. One
large, round, silver object flew at more than 1,000 m.p.h. for 45
seconds, while gyrating.

July 22, 1952; between Boston and Provincetown, Massachusetts.
10:47 p.m. Witnesses: pilot and radar operator of USAF F-94 jet
interceptor. One round blue light passed F-94, spinning.

July 22, 1952; Trenton, New Jersey. 10:50 p.m. t.o 12:45 a.m.,
July 23. Witnesses: crews of several USAF F-94 jet interceptors
from Dover AFB, Del. Thirteen visual sightings and one radar
tracking of blue-white lights during two hours.

July 23, 1952; Pottstown, Pennsylvania. 8:40 a.m. Witnesses:
the two-man crews of three USAF F-94 jet interceptors. One large
silver object, shaped like a long pear with two or three squares
beneath it, flew at 150-180 kts. (170-210 m.p.h.), while a
smaller object, delta-shaped or swept back, flew around it at
1,000-1,500 kts. (1,150-1,700 m.p.h.). Seen by crews for 1-4
minutes.

July 23, 1952; Altoona, Pennsylvania. 12:50 p.m. Witnesses:
two-man crews of two USAF F-94 jet interceptors at 35-46,000′
altitude. Three cylindrical objects in a vertical stack
formation flew at an altitude of 50-80,000′. Seen for 20
minutes.

July 23, 1952; South Bend, Indiana. 11:35 p.m. Witness: USAF
pilot Capt. H. W. Kloth. Two bright blue-white objects flew
together, then the rear one veered off after about 9 minutes.

July 24, 1952; Carson Sink, Nevada. 3:40 p.m. Witnesses: two
USAF Lt. Colonels McGinn and Barton in a B-25 bomber. Three
silver, delta-shaped objects, each with a ridge along the top,
crossed in front of and above the B-25 at high speed, in 3-4
seconds.

July 26, 1952; Washington, D.C. 8 p.m. until after midnight.
Witnesses: radar operators at several airports, airline pilots.
Many unidentified blips tracked by radar all over Washington
area, at varying speeds. Pilots spotted unidentified lights.

July 26, 1952; Kansas City, Missouri. 12:15 a.m. Witnesses:
USAF Capt. H. A. Stone, men in control towers at Fairfax Field
and Municipal Airport. One greenish light with red-orange
flashes was seen for 1 hour as it descended in the northwest from
40* elevation to 10* elevation.

July 26, 1952; Andrews AFB, Maryland. This was a continuation of
the extensive sightings and radar tracking reports reported
throughout the Washington, D.C. area, all night long.

July 26, 1952; Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. 12:05 a.m. Witness:
Airman lst Class J.M. Donaldson. Eight to ten orange balls in a
triangular or V-formation flew very fast for 3-4 seconds.

July 26, 1952; Williams, California. Case missing from official
files.

July 27, 1952; Selfridge AFB, Michigan. 10:05 a.m. Witnesses:
three B-29 bomber crewmen on ground. Many round, white objects
flew straight and level, very fast. Two at 10:05, one at 10:10,
one at 10:15, one at 10:20. Each was seen for about 30 seconds.

July 27, 1952; Wichita Falls, Texas. 8:30 p.m. Witnesses: Mr.
and Mrs. Adrian Ellis. Two disc-shaped objects, illuminated by a
phosphorus light, flew at an estimated l,000 m.p.h. for 15
seconds.

July 28, 1952; Heidelberg, West Germany. 10:20 p.m. Witnesses:
Sgt. B.C. Grassmoen, WAC Pfc. A.P. Turner. One saucer-shaped
object having an appearance of light metal and giving off shafts
of white light, flew slow, made a 90^ turn and climbed away fast
after 4-5 minutes.

July 28, 1952; McGuire AFB, New Jersey. 6 a.m. Witness: Ground
Control Approach radar operator M/Sgt. W.F. Dees, and persons in
the base control tower. Radar tracked a large cluster of very
distinct blips. Visual observation was of oblong objects having
neither wings nor tail, which made a very fast turn and at one
time were in echelon formation. Entire episode lasted 55
minutes.

July 28, 1952; McChord AFB, Washington. 2:15 a.m. Witnesses:
T/Sgt. Walstead, S/Sgt. Calkins of the 635th AC&W Squadron. One
dull, glowing, blue-green ball,.the size of a dime at arms’
length, flew very fast, straight and level.

July 29, 1952; Osceola, Wisconsin. 1:30 a.m. Witnesses: radar
operators on ground, pilot of F-5l Mustang in flight. Several
clusters of up to 10 small radar targets and one large target.
Small targets moved from southwest to east at 50-60 kts. (60-70
m.p.h.), following each other. The large one moved at 600 kts.
(700 m.p.h.). One hour total time. Pilot confirmed one target.

July 29, 1952; Langley AFB, Virginia. 2:30 p.m. Witness: USAF
Capt D.G. Moore, of military air traffic control system. One
undescribed object flew at an estimated 2,600 m.p.h., below
5,000′ altitude, toward the air base for about 2 minutes.

July 29, 1952; Langley AFB, Virginia. 2:50 p.m. Witnesses: Mr.
Moore, Gilfillan electronics representative W. Yhope. One radar
target tracked moving away, stopped for 2 minutes, again moved
very, very fast. Four minutes.

July 29, 1952; Merced, California. 3:44 or 4:35 p.m. Witnesses:
Herbert Mitchell and one employee. One dark, discus-shaped
object, trailed by a silvery light 2 lengths behind, tipped on
its side, dove, hesitated and then circled very fast during the 2
minute sighting.

July 29, 1952; Wichita, Kansas. 12:35 p.m. Witnesses: USAF
shop employees Douglas and Hess at Municipal Airport. One bright
white circular object with a flat bottom flew very fast, and then
hovered 10-15 seconds over the Cessna Aircraft Co. plant, during
the 5 minute sighting.

July 29, 1952; Ennis, Montana. 12:30 p.m. Witnesses: USAF
persons, alerted that UFOs were coming from the direction of
Seattle, Wash. Two to five flat disc-shaped objects: one
hovered 3-4 minutes, while the others circled it. Sighting
length of 30 minutes not explained further.

July 30, 1952; Albuquerque, New Mexico. 11:02 p.m. Witness:
USAF lst Lt. George Funk. One orange light remained stationary
for 10 minutes. No further details in files.

July 30, 1952; San Antonio, Texas. 10 a.m. Witnesses: E.E. Nye
and one other person. One round, white object flew slow and then
sped away after 20-30 minutes.

Aug. 1, 1952; Lancaster, California. 1:14 a.m. Witnesses:
sheriff’s deputies and other persons, one named Mallette. Two
brilliant red lights hovered and maneuvered for 5 minutes.

Aug. 2, 1952; Lake Charles, Louisiana. 3 a.m. Witnesses: USAF
lst Lt. W.A. Theil, one enlisted man. One red ball with a blue
flame tail flew straight and level for 3-4 seconds.

Aug. 4, 1952; Phoenix, Arizona. 2:20 a.m. Witness: USAF
A/3c W.F. Vain. One yellow ball which lengthened and narrowed to
plate shape, flew straight and level for 5 minutes.

Aug. 4, 1952; Mt. Vernon, New York. 11:37 a.m. Witnesses: one
woman, two children. One object, shaped like a lifesaver or
donut, emitted black smoke from its top and made a 15′ arc in 1.5
minutes. Observed for 2 hours.

Aug 5. 1952; Haneda AFB, Japan. 11:30 p.m. Witnesses: USAF
F-94 jet interceptor pilots lst Lt. W.R. Holder and lst Lt. A.M.
Jones, and Haneda control tower operators. Airborne radar
tracked a target for 90 seconds. Control tower operators watched
50-60 minutes while a dark shape with a light flew as fast as 330
kts. (380 m.p.h.), hovered, flew curves and performed a variety
of maneuvers.

Aug. 6, 1952; Tokyo, Japan. This is a continuation of the Haneda
AFB sightings.

Aug. 6, 1952; Port Austin, Michigan. Case missing from official
files.

Aug. 7. 1952; San Antonio, Texas. 9:08 a.m. Witness: Mrs.
Susan Pfuhl. Four glowing white discs: one made a 180* turn,
one flew straight and level, one veered off, and one circled
during the 70 minute sighting.

Aug. 9, 1952; Lake Charles, Louisiana. 10:50 a.m. Witness:
USAF A/3c J.P. Raley. One disc-shaped object flew very fast and
then hovered for 2 seconds during a 5-6 minute sighting.

Aug. 13, 1952; Tokyo, Japan. 9:45 p.m. Witness: USAF Marine
Corps pilot Maj. D. McGough. One orange light flew a left orbit
at 8,000′ and 230 m.p.h., spiralled down to no more than 1,500′,
remained stationary for 2-3 minutes and went out. An attempted
interception was unsuccessful.

Aug. 18, 1952; Fairfield, California. 12:50 a.m. Witnesses:
three policemen. One object changed color like a diamond, and
changed directions during the 30 minute sighting.

Aug. 19, 1952; Red Bluff, California. 2:38 p.m. Witness:
Ground Observer Corps observer Albert Lathrop. Two objects,
shaped like fat bullets, flew straight and level, very fast for
25 seconds.

Aug. 20, 1952; Neffesville, Pennsylvania. 3:10 a.m. Witnesses:
Bill Ford and two others. An undescribed object flew at 500′
altitude for several minutes. No further data in files.

Aug. 21, 1952; Dallas, Texas. 11:54 p.m. Witness: Jack Rossen,
ex-artillery observer. Three blue-white lights hovered then
descended; 1.5 minutes later, one of them descended more.

Aug. 23, 1952; Akron, Ohio. 4:10 a.m. Witnesses: USAF 2nd Lt.
H.K. Funseth, a ground radar observer, and two U.S. Navy men.
One pulsing amber light was seen to fly straight and level for 7
minutes.

Aug. 24, 1952; Hermanas, Mexico. 10:15 a.m. Witness: Georgia
Air National Guard F-84G jet fighter pilot Col. G.W. Johnson.
Two 6′ silver balls in abreast formation, one turned grey
rapidly, the other slowly. One changed to long grey shape during
a turn. Sighting lasted about 10 minutes.

Aug. 24, 1952; Tucson, Arizona. 5:40 p.m. Witnesses: Mr. and
Mrs. George White. One large round, metallic, white light with a
vague lower surface, flew slowly, then fast With a dancing,
wavering motion, for about 1 minute.

Aug. 24, 1952; Levelland, Texas. 9:30 p.m., 10:30 p.m.
Witnesses: Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Sharp. One object, shaped like a
spinning top, changing color from red to yellow to blue, and with
a fiery tail, hovered for 20 minutes, whistling, then flew away.
It, or another like it, returned an hour later.

Aug. 25, 1952; Pittsburg, Kansas. 5:35 a.m. Witness: radio
station musician William Squyres. One dull aluminum object,
shaped like two meat platters, face to face, estimated at 75′
long, 45′ wide, and 15′ thick. Through a window in the front
section shone a blue light; the head and shoulders of a man could
be seen. The mid section had numerous windows through which
could be seen some kind of regular movement. A series of small
propellers were spaced close together along the outer edge of the
object, revolving at high speed. The object was hovering about
10′ above the ground, 100 yards off the road, with a slight
rocking motion. It then ascended vertically with a sound like a
large covey of quail starting to fly at the same time.
Vegetation showed signs of having been disturbed under the
object.

Aug. 25, 1952; Holloman AFB, New Mexico. 3:40 p.m. Witnesses:
civilian supervisor Fred Lee, foreman L.A. Aquilar. One round
silver object flew south, turned and flew north, made a 360 turn
and flew away vertically after 3-5 minutes.

Aug. 26, 1952; Lathrop Wells, Nevada. 12:10 a.m. Witness: USAF
Capt. D.A. Woods. One large, round, very bright object with a
V-shaped contrail having a dark cone in the center, flew very
fast, hovered, made an instantaneous 90 turn, followed by a
gentle climb and finally sudden acceleration.

Aug. 28, 1952; Chickasaw and Brookley AFB, Alabama. 9:30 p.m.
Witnesses: USAF control tower operators, officer from USAF
Office of Special Investigations, and others. Six objects,
varying from fiery red to sparkling diamond appearance, hovered,
flew erratically up and down for 1 hour and l5minutes.

Aug. 29, 1952; Colorado Springs, Colorado. 8:35 p.m. Witness:
pilot C.A. Magruder. Three objects, 50′ in diameter, 10′ high,
aluminum with red-yellow exhaust, flew in trail at estimated
1,500 m.p.h. for 4-5 seconds.

Aug. 29, 1952; west of Thule, Greenland (77′ N., 75* 15′ W.)
10:50 a.m. Witnesses: two U.S. Navy pilots flying a P4Y-2
patrol plane. Three white disc-shaped or spherical objects
hovered, then flew very fast in a triangular formation, in 2-3
minutes.

Sept. l, 1952; Marietta, Georgia. 10:50 p.m. Witness: ex-AAF
B-25 gunner. Two large white disc-shaped objects with green
vapor trails flew in trail formation, merged, flew away very
fast.

Sept. 1, 1952; Marietta, Georgia. 10:30 p.m. Witness: one
unidentified person using binoculars. Two large objects shaped
like spinning tops and displaying red, blue and green colors,
flew side by side, leaving a sparkling trail for 30 minutes.

Sept. 1, 1952; Atlanta, Georgia. 9:43 p.m. Witnesses: Mrs.
William Davis and nine other persons. One light, similar to the
evening star, moved up and down for a long period of time.

Sept. l, 1952; Marietta, Georgia. 10:30 p.m. Witnesses: Mr.
Bowman (ex-artillery officer) and 24 others. A red, white, and
blue-green object which spun and shot off sparks for 15 minutes.

Sept. 1, 1952; Yaak, Montana. 4:45 a.m. Witnesses: Visual
sighting by two USAF enlisted men, radar tracking seen by three
men using AN/FPS-3 radar set. Two small, varicolored lights
became black silhouettes at dawn; flew erratically. One hour.

Sept. 2, 1952; Chicago, Illinois. 3 a.m. Witness: radar
tracker Turason (ground controlled approach) at Midway Airport.
40 targets flew in miscellaneous directions, up to 175 m.p.h.
Two seemed to fly in formation with DC-6 airliner. Total of
8 hours.

Sept. 3, 1952; Tucson, Arizona. 99 a.m. Witnesses: civilian
pilots McCraven and Thomas. One shiny, dark ellipse made three
broad, curving sweeps in 1.5 minutes.

Sept. 6, 1952; Lake Charles AFB, Louisiana. l:3O’a.m.
Witnesses: T/Sgt. J.E. Wilson and two enlisted men. One bright
star-like light moved about the sky for 2 hours.

Sept. 6, 1952; Tucson, Arizona. 4:55 p.m. Witnesses: ex-
Congresswoman Mrs. Isabella King and Bill McClain. One orange
teardrop-shaped object whirled on its vertical axis, descended
very fast, stopped, retraced its path upwards, while whirling in
the opposite direction. 1.5 minutes.

Sept. 7, 1952; San Antonio, Texas. 10:30 p.m. Witnesses:
chemist J.W. Gibson and others. One orange object or light (the
color of 2,000′ F.) exploded into view. Seen for from 3-20
seconds by various observers.

Sept. 9, 1952; Rabat, French Morocco. 9 p.m. Witness: E.J.
colisimo, a civilian illustrator with USAF Intelligence. One
disc with lights along part of its circumference, flew twice as
fast as a T-33 jet trainer, in a slightly curved path for 5
seconds.

Sept. 12, 1952; Allen, Maryland. 9:30 p.m. Witnesses: Mr. and
Mrs. David Kolb, of the Ground Observer Corps, using binoculars.
One white light with a red trim and streamers flew northeast for
35 minutes.

Sept. 13, 1952; Allentown, Pennsylvania. 7:40 p.m. Witness:
private pilot W.A. Hobler, flying a Beech Bonanza. One object,
shaped like a fat football, flaming orange-red color, descended
and then pulled up in front of the witness’ airplane. Seen for 2
seconds.

Sept. 14, 1952; Santa Barbara, California. 8:40 p.m. Witness:
USAF C-54 transport pilot Tarbutton. One blue-white light
travelled straight and level, then went up. Seen for 30 seconds.

Sept. 14, 1952; North Atlantic, between Ireland and Iceland.
Witnesses: military persons from several countries aboard ships
in the NATO “Operation Mainbrace” exercise. Among the sightings:
one blue-green triangle was observed flying 1,500 m.p.h; three
objects in a triangular formation gave off white light exhaust at
1,500 m.p.h.

Sept. 14, 1952; White Lake, South Dakota. 7 p.m. Witness:
Ground Observer Corps observer L.W. Barnes, using binoculars.
One red, cigar-shaped object, with three puffs behind it, flew
west, then south, and then was gone. Seen 30-40 minutes.

Sept. 14, 1952; Ciudad Jaurez, Mexico. 11:30 p.m. to 1:20 a.m.,
Sept. 15. Witnesses: consulting engineer R. J. Portis and three
others. Six groups of 12-15 luminous spheres or discs, which
flew in formations varying from arcs to inverted-Y’s, very fast.

Sept. 14, 1952; Olmstead AFB, Pennsylvania. Time not known.
Witness: pilot of Flying Tiger Airlines airplane N67977. One
blue light flew very fast on a collision course with the
airliner. Note: the summary card attached to the file showed
completely different information.

Sept. 16, 1952; Portland, Maine. 6:22 p.m. Witnesses: crew of
U.S. Navy P2V Neptune patrol plane, visually and via radar. A
group of five lights was seen at the same time a long, thin blip
was being tracked on radar. Note: consideration was given to
this being USAF KC-97 airplanes involved in a refueling
operation. The sighting involved 20 minutes.

Sept. 16, 1952; Warner-Robbins AFB, Georgia. 7:30 p.m.
Witnesses: three USAF officers, two civilians. Two white lights
flew abreast, at 100 m.p.h., for 15 minutes.

Sept. 17, 1952; Tucson, Arizona. 11:40 a.m. Witnesses: Mr. and
Mrs. Ted Hollingsworth. Two groups of three large, flat, shiny
objects flew in tight formations: the first group slow, the
second faster. Seen for 2 minutes.

Sept. 23, 1952; Gander Lake, Newfoundland, Canada. No time
shown. Witnesses: Pepperell AFB operations officer and seven
other campers. One bright white light, which reflected on the
lake, flew straight and level at 100 m.p.h. for 10 minutes.

Sept. 24, 1952; Charleston, West Virginia. 3:30 p.m. Witnesses:
crew of USAF B-29 bomber. A lot of bright, metallic particles or
flashes, up to 3′ in length, streamed past the B-29 for 15
minutes.

Sept. 26, 1952; 400 miles NNW of Azores Islands. 11:16 p.m.
Witnesses: pilot, copilot, engineer and aircraft commander of
USAF C-124 transport plane. Two distinct green lights were seen
to the right and slightly above the C-124, and at one time seemed
to turn toward it. The lights alternated leading each other
during more than 1 hour of observation.

Sept. 27, 1952; Inyokern, California. 10 p.m. Witnesses: two
couples, using a 5x telescope. One large, round object, which
went through the color spectrum every 2 seconds, was seen to fly
straight and level for 15 minutes.

Sept. 29, 1952; Rochester, England. 3:55 p.m. Witnesses
unknown, but report came via the Rochester Police Dept. Two flat
objects hovered for 3 minutes, and then sped away.

Sept. 29, 1952; Southern Pines, North Carolina. 8:15 p.m.
Witnesses: U.S. Army Res. lst Lt. C.H. Stevens and two others.
One green ellipse with a long tail orbited for 15 minutes.

Sept. 29, 1952; Aurora, Colorado. 3:15 p.m. Witness: USAF
T/Sgt. B.R. Hughes. Five or six circular objects, bright white
but not shiny, circled in trail formation for 5-6 minutes.

Oct. 1, 1952; Shaw AFB, South Carolina. 6:57 p.m. Witness:
USAF lst Lt. T.J. Pointek, pilot of RF-8O reconnaissance jet. One
bright white light flew straight, then vertical, then hovered,
and then made an abrupt turn during a 23 minute attempted
intercept.

Oct. 1, 1952; Pascagoula, Mississippi. 7:40 p.m. Witnesses:
Mr. and Mrs. C.C. McLean and one other person. One round,
milky-white object, shaped like a powder puff, hovered for 5-10
minutes then flew away very fast in an arc. A loud blast was
heard at the start of the 22 minute sighting.

Oct. 7, 1952; Alamagordo, New Mexico. 8:30 p.m. Witness: USAF
Lt. Bagnell. One pale blue oval, with its long axis vertical,
flew straight and level for 4-5 seconds, covering 30 in that
time.

Oct. 10, 1952; Otis AFB, Massachusetts. 6:30 p.m. Witnesses:
USAF S/Sgt., two other enlisted men. One blinking white light
moved like a pendulum for 20 minutes, and then shot straight up.

Oct. 17, 1952; Taos, New Mexico. 9:15 p.m. Witnesses: Four
USAF officers One round, bright blue light moved from north to
northeast at an elevation of 45* for 2-3 seconds and then burned
out.

Oct. 17, 1952; Killeen, Texas. 10:15 p.m. Witnesses: Ministers
Greenwalt and Kluck. Ten lights, or a rectangle of lights, moved
more or less straight and level for 5 seconds.

Oct. 17, 1952; Tierra Amarilla, New Mexico. 11 p.m. Witness:
one military person (no detail). One white streamer moved at an
estimated 3,000 m.p.h. in an arc for 20 seconds. No further
details in files.

Oct. 19, 1952; San Antonio, Texas. 1:30 p.m. Witness: one
ex-USAF aircrewman Woolsey. Three circular aluminum objects, one
of which was olive-drab colored on the side, flew in a rough
V-formation. One object flipped slowly, another object stopped,
during the 3-4 minute sighting.

Oct. 19. 1952; 500 miles south of Hawaii. 6:58 p.m. Witnesses:
crew of USAF C-50 transport plane. One round yellow light, with
a red glowing edge, estimated at 100′ in diameter, flew at
300-400 kts. (350-450 m.p.h.) for 20 seconds.

Oct. 21, 1952; Knoxville, Tennessee. No time given. Witnesses:
persons at airport weather station. Six white lights flew in a
loose formation for 1-2 minutes, and made a shallow dive at a
weather balloon.

Oct. 24, 1952; Elberton, Alabama. 8:26 p.m. Witnesses: USAF
Lt. Rau, Capt. Marcinko, flying a Beech T-ll trainer. One
object, shaped like a plate, with a brilliant front and vague
trail, flew with its concave surface forward for 5 seconds.

Oct. 29, 1952; Erding Air Depot, West Germany. 7:50 a.m.
Witnesses: USAF S/Sgt. Anderson, A/2c Max Handy. One round
object, silhouetted against a cloud, flew straight and level and
smooth at 400 m.p.h. for 20 seconds.

Oct. 31, 1952; Fayetteville, Georgia. 7:40 p.m. Witness: USAF
Lt. James Allen. One orange, blimp-shaped object, 80′ long and
20′ high, flew at treetop level, crossed over Allen’s car (at
which time his radio stopped playing), then climbed out at 45′
and tremendous speed at the end of a 1 minute sighting.

Nov. 3, 1952; Laredo AFB, Texas. 66:29 p.m. Witnesses: two
control tower operators, including Lemaster. One long,
elliptical, white-grey light flew very fast, paused, and then
increased speed during a 3-4 second observation.

Nov. 4, 1952; Vineland, New Jersey. 5:40 p.m. Witness:
housewife Mrs. Sprague. Two groups of 2-3 whirling discs of
light flew toward the southeast over a period of 30 seconds.

Nov. 12, 1952; Los Alamos, New Mexico. 10:23 p.m. Witness:
security inspector. Four red-white-green lights flew slowly over
a prohibited area for 15 minutes.

Nov. 13, 1952; Opheim, Montana. 2:20 a.m. Witness: radar
tracking by USAF 779th AC&W station. An unexplained track was
followed for 1 hour, 28 minutes, at 158,000′ altitude (30 miles)
and a speed of 240 m.p.h. Radar was FPS/3 (PPI).

Nov. 13, 1952; Glasgow, Montana. 2:43 a.m. Witness: U.S.
Weather Bureau observer Earl Oksendahl. Five oval-shaped
objects, with lights all around them, flew in a V-formation for
about 20 seconds. Each object seemed to be changing position
vertically by climbing or diving as if to hold formation.
Formation came from the northwest, made a 90* overhead, and flew
away to the southwest.

Nov. 15, 1952; Wichita, Kansas. 7:02 a.m. Witnesses: USAF Maj.
R.L. Wallander, Capt. Belleman, A/3c Phipps. One orange object
(a blue streak?) varied in shape, as it made jerky upward sweeps
with 10-15 second pauses during a 3-5 minute sighting.

Nov. 24, 1952; Annandale, Virginia. 6:30 p.m. Witness: L.L’
Brettner. One round, glowing object flew very fast, made right
angle turns and reversed course during a 1 hour sighting.

Nov. 27, 1952; Albuquerque, New Mexico. 12:10 p.m. Witnesses:
pilot and crew chief of UAAF B-26 bomber. A series of black
smoke bursts (4-3-3-4-3), similar to antiaircraft fire, was seen
over a 20 minute period.C. 12:30 a.m. Witnesses: radar

Nov. 30, 1952; Washington, D.C. l
operators at Washington National Airport. Radar trackings
similar to those of July 26, 1952.

Dec. 8, 1952; Ladd AFB, Alaska. 8:16 p.m. Witnesses: pilot lst
Lt. D. Dickman and radar operator lst Lt. T. Davies in USAF F-94
jet interceptor (s/n 49-2522). One white, oval light which
changed to red at higher altitude, flew straight and level for 2
minutes, then climbed at phenomenal speed on an erratic flight
path. Sighting lasted 10 minutes.

Dec. 9, 1952; Madison, Wisconsin. 5:45 p.m. Witnesses: Capt.
Bridges and lst Lt. Johneon in USAF T-33 jet trainer. Four
bright lights, in diamond formation, flew at 400 m.p.h. and were
passed by the T-33 at 450 m.p.h. during the 10 minute sighting.

Dec. 28, 1952; Marysville, California. Case missing from
official files.

Jan. 1, 1953; Craig, Montana. 8:45 p.m. Witnesses: Warner
Anderson and two women. A silver, saucer-shaped object with a
red glowing bottom, flew low over a river and then climbed fast
in a horizontal attitude. Ten second sighting.

Jan. 8, 1953; Larson AFB, Washington. 7:15 a.m. Witnesses: men
from the 82nd Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, including the
squadron commander; all were on the ground. One green, disc-
shaped or round object flew southwest for 15 minutes, with a
vertically bobbing motion and sideways movements, below clouds.

Jan. 10, 1953; Sonoma, California. 3:45 p.m. or 4 p.m.
Witnesses: retired Col. Robert McNab, and Mr. Hunter of the
Federal Security Agency. One flat object, like a pinhead, made
three 360* right turns in 9 seconds, made abrupt 90* turns to the
right and left, stopped, accelerated to original speed and
finally flew out of sight vertically after 60-75 seconds.

Jan. 17, 1953; near Guatemala City, Guatemala. 3:55 p.m.
Witness: geologist/salesman J.J. Sackett. One brilliant
green-gold object, shaped like the Goodyear blimp with its length
twice its height, flew 400 m.p.h. straight and level, stopped,
then went straight up with one stop. Sighting lasted 22 seconds.

Jan. 28, 1953; Pt. Mugu, California. 1 p.m. Witness: R.W.
Love, owner of Love Diving Co., engaged in retrieving radio-
controlled drones. An 18-20′ white, flat disc flew straight and
level, overhead, for 6 minutes.

Jan. 28, 1953; Corona, California. 6:05 p.m. Witness: USAF
T/Sgt. George Beyer. Five 25′ green spheres flew in V-formation,
then changed to trail formation at which time the end objects
turned red. Sighting lasted 12 minutes.

Jan. 28, 1953; Albany, Georgia. No time given. Witnesses:
radar maintenance personnel. Radar tracked one stationary target
for 20 minutes. A visual sighting about the same time was
explained. No further information in the files.

Feb. 3, 1953; Keflavik, Iceland. 5:25 p.m. Witnesses: radar
operators. Four unidentified targets were tracked for 24
minutes. No further data.

Feb. 4, 1953; Yuma, Arizona. 1:50 p.m. Witness: U.S. Weather
Bureau observer Stanley Brown, using a theodolite. One white,
oblong object was tracked flying straight up, leveling off and
being joined by a second, similar, object. The second twice flew
away and returned to the first. After 5 minutes, both were lost
to sight behind clouds.

Feb. 17, 1953; Port Austin. Michigan. 10:04 p.m. Witnesses:
two officers and three airmen of USAF AC&W squadron, visually and
by radar. Visual object appeared to larger and brighter than a
star and changed color; it was seen to move slowly for 5 minutes
until 10:09 p.m. Radar picked up a target at 10:08 p.m. moving
in a similar direction for 17 minutes, at similar speed.

Feb. 20, 1953; Pittsburg-Stockton, California. #1 time unknown;
#2, 10:30 p.m. Witnesses: USAF B-25 bomber pilots. #1 was a
bright yellow light seen for 8 minutes. #2 was a bright light
which flew on a collision course, dimmed and climbed away fast.

Feb. 24, 1953; Sherman, Texas. 7:43 p.m. Witnesses: Warrant
Officer and Mrs. Alden. Two bright red, round objects with big
halos flew in small circles, climbed and faded during a 3-7
second sighting.

Feb. 27, 1953; Shreveport, Louisiana. 11:58 a.m. Witness: USAF
airman/private pilot. Five yellow discs made circular turns,
fluttered, three of them vanished, the other two flew erratic
square turns for a total of 4 minutes.

March 11, 1953; Hackettstown, New Jersey. 4 a.m. Witness: Mrs.
Nina Cook, an experienced private pilot and wife of a Pan Am
flight engineer. A large light, blinking at 10-15 times per
minute, moved up and down along a mountain range.

March 14, 1953; north of Hiroshima, Japan. 11:45 p.m.
Witnesses: radar and visual observation by 10 crew members of
U.S. Navy P2V-5 patrol plane. Groups of 5-10 colored lights,
totalling 90-100, slowly moved aft off the left side of the
airplane, as detected visually and by airborne radar for 5
minutes.

March 21, 1953; Elmira, New York. 3:05 p.m. Witness: Ground
Observer Corps observation post. Six discs in a group flew high
and fast for a few seconds.

March 25, 1953; San Antonio, Texas. 3:05 p.m. Witnesses: USAF
Capt. and Mrs. D.E. Cox. Several lights, some of which moved
straight, others which made 360^ turns for 1.5 hours.

March 27, 1953; Mt. Taylor, New Mexico. 7:25 p.m. Witness:
pilot of USAF F-86 jet fighter at 600 kts. (700 m.p.h.). One
bright orange circle flew at 800 kts. (900 m.p.h.), and executed
three fast rolls. Pilot chased object for 4 minutes.

March 29, 1953; Spooner, Wisconsin. 3:45 p.m. Witness: L.C.
Gillette. One aluminum, circular object flew high and fast,
twice reversing its course. Note: Mr. Gillette saw a similar
object in 1938. Fifteen second sighting.

April 8, 1953; Fukuoka, Japan. 7:55 p.m. Witness: lst Lt. D.J.
Pichon, pilot of USAF F-94B jet interceptor. One bright blue
light descended, accelerated, flew parallel to the F-94,
increased its speed and blinked out after 45 seconds.

April 15, 1953; Tucson, Arizona. 5:45 p.m. Witness: S/Sgt.
V.A. Locey. Three orange lights were seen for: 3 minutes, 30
seconds, and a few seconds.

May 1, 1953; Goose AFB, Labrador, Canada. 11:35 p.m. Witnesses:
pilot and radar operator of USAF F-94 jet interceptor, and
control tower operator. One white light evaded interception
attempt by F-94 during 30 minute sighting.

May 27, 1953; San Antonio, Texas. 8:30 p.m. Witnesses: many
unidentified civilians, including Jacobson. Nine separate
meandering lights were seen during 15 minute sighting.

June 21, 1953; Naha, Okinawa. 7 p.m. Witnesses: Nine Japanese
and Okinawan weather observers. One unidentified light moved
slowly for 20 minutes. No further data in files.

June 22, 1953; Goose AFB, Labrador, Canada. Z:lO a.m.
Witnesses: pilot and radar operator of USAF F-94 jet
interceptor. One red light, flying at an estimated 1,000 kts.
(1,100 m.p.h.) eluded the chasing F-94 after 5 minutes.

June 24, 1953; Iwo Jima, Bonin Islands. 11:30 p.m. Witnesses:
crew of USAF KB-29 aerial tanker plane. Radar tracked an
unidentified target which twice approached to within .5 miles of
the airplane, and once to within 6 miles, during a 2 minute
observation.

June 24, 1953; Simiutak, Greenland. 11:30 a.m. Witness:
weather observer A/2c R.A. Hill. One red triangle hovered and
rotated for 15 seconds, then climbed for 5 minutes.

Aug. 3, 1953; Amarillo, Texas. 12:04 p.m. Witness: Airport
control tower chief C.S. Brown. One round and reflective or
translucent object flew straight, stopped for 7 seconds, sped
along, stopped again, was joined by a similar object and they
flew off in different directions, after a total of 56 minutes.

Aug. 20, 1953; near Castle AFB, California. 9:05 p.m.
Witnesses: crew of TB-29 bomber/trainer plane. One greyish oval
object made four passes at the airplane (three times at 10-20
miles distance), then dived vertically as if two objects.

Aug. 27, 1953; Greenville, Mississippi. 9:45 p.m. Witnesses:
USAF pilot, M/Sgt., others, all on the ground. One meandering
light was observed for 50 minutes. No further details in file.

Sept. 2, 1953; Sidi Slimane AFB, French Morocco. 9:14 p.m.
Witnesses: Lt. Col. William Moore and lst Lt. J.H. McInnis,
Dec. 24, 1953; El Cajon, California. 8:04 a.m. Witnesses: U.S.
Navy Lts. J.B. Howard and L.D. Linhard, flying F9F-2 jet
fighters. Ten silver, oval objects flew at more than 400 kts.
(450 m.p.h.), straight and level, for 5 minutes.

Dec. 28, 1953; Marysville, California. 11:55 a.m. Witness:
Yuba County Airport Manager Dick Brandt. One saucer, with a
brilliant blue light, reflecting on a nearby building, hovered
briefly during the 1.5 minute observation.
Jan. 28, 1954; Rangeley, Maine. 110-10:15 a.m. Witness: Wilhelm
Reich. Two bright lights moved into valley, and were seen
against the mountain background, for 15 minutes.

Feb. 26, 1954; Newburyport, Massachusetts. 2:30 p.m. Witnesses:
architect R.M. Pierce, marine engineer George Avery and one other
person. One silver disc, with a white trail, made a loud roar
for 30-60 seconds.

March 2, 1954; vicinity of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 10 p.m.
Witness: research engineer R.C. Swengel. Three objects, each
with two lights, flew straight and level at medium speed for an
unknown length of time.

March 5, 1954; Nouasseur, French Morocco. 8 p.m. Witnesses:
crews of USAF KC-97 aerial tanker planes. One object or light
made passes at KC-97s, the other flew straight and level.
Sighting duration unknown.

March 12, 1954; Nouasseur, French Morocco. 9:35 a.m. Witness:
USAF lst Lt. Robert Johnson, flying an F-86 jet fighter. He
chased an object at more than 530 m.p.h. for 30 seconds, but was
unable to catch it. It appeared to be the size of a fighter
plane but had neither tanks nor trails.

April 8, 1954; Chicago, Illinois. 4:30 p.m. Witness: Lelah
Stoker. One white round-topped disc, with a humanoid suspended
beneath it, skimmed over the water, landed, and an occupant in a
green suit walked around. It then took off very, very fast.
Sighting lasted 30 minutes.

April 23, 1954; Pittsfield, Maine. 9:30 a.m. Witnesses: Mr.
and Mrs. F.E. Robinson. One silver dollar-shaped object with a
dome and a flashing light made a sound like a swarm of bees. It
hovered and tilted, flew horizontally, then rose vertically
without tilting. Stones underneath it moved. Four minute
sighting.

April 24, 1954; Hartland, Maine. 6:10 p.m. Witness: D.
Robinson. One large, silver, oblong object with a dome and a
flashing light flew straight and level and then straight up.
Total of 15 minutes under observation.

April 26, 1954; Athens, Georgia. 7:35 p.m. Witnesses: C.
Cartey, Mr. and Mrs. H. Hopkins and their daughter. Fifteen to
twenty yellow objects in a V-formation, flew from south to north
for 10 seconds.

May 10, 1954; Elsinore, California. 12:40 p.m. Witness: U.S.
Marine Corps Squadron Leader D.R. Higgin, flying an F3D-2 jet
fighter. One dark gunmetal delta-shaped object, 22′ long and 10′
wide, with a fin on the top, descended at a 25-30′ angle under
the lead airplane of a formation, and over the airplane of
Higgin. Sighting lasted a few seconds.

May 11, 1954; Washington, D.C. 10:45 p.m. Witnesses: three
USAF.air policemen at Washington National Airport. Two bright
lights were seen on three occasions to fly straight and level,
make 90* turns and fade. Each sighting lasted about 45 seconds.

May 22, 1954; LaPorte, Indiana. 9:15 p.m. Witnesses: highway
engineer R.W. Dring, engineer Geert Tibma. One bright light made
a shallow climb for 45 seconds.

May 31, 1954; Concord, New Hampshire. 10:15 a.m. Witness: Mrs.
L.K. Stevens. One very white, elongated object flew very, very
fast, and then blinked out after 8-10 seconds.

June 1, 1954; from 400 miles south to Minneapolis, Minnesota.
9 p.m. Witnesses: crew of USAF B-47 jet bomber at 34,000′
altitude. One object with running lights flew at 24-44,000′
altitude for 1 hour.

June 8, 1954; Texarkana, Texas. 1 a.m. or 2:30 a.m. (file not
clear). Witness: L.T. Prewitt, employee of Red River Arsenal.
One golden yellow light flew over his house, making a “shhh” or
buzzing sound for 2 minutes. 9:09 p.m. Witness: USAF pilot

June 10, 1954; Estacado, Texas. 9:09 p.m. Witness: USAF pilot
Capt. Bill McDonald, in flight. One white light descended at
45^ from great altitude, passed under his aircraft, made two
360′ turns and went out after 30 seconds.

June 22, 1954; Miami Beach, Florida. 9 p.m. Witnesses: U.S.
Marine Corps Maj. E. Buchser and Maj. J.V. Wilkins. One meteor-
like object descended, stopped, and became extremely bright.
Sighting lasted 7 minutes.

June 24, 1954; Danvers, Massachusetts. 12:45 p.m. Witness:
R.B. Tomer, director of commercial engineering for CBS-Hytron.
One white, elliptical-shaped object covered 45^ of sky in 30
seconds.

June 25, 1954; Indian Lake, Ohio. 5:05 p.m. Witnesses:
experienced private pilot John Mark, flying Navion lightplane;
radar at Dayton, Ohio airport, tracked very fast target at same
location. One silver or aluminum round object with a flat
bottom, raised front edge, inverted cone on top, and a diameter
of about 60′. Flew horizontally, hovered, made a high-G pull up
and then a steep climb into an overcast. Sighting lasted 3-5
minutes.

July 18, ; Normandy, Missouri. 8:40 p.m. Witness: A.T.
Chamblin. One greenish-white disc was seen for 30 minutes.

July 25, 1954; Middle Sister Island, on U.S.-Canadian border in
western Lake Erie. 7:12 p.m. Witness: attorney L.B. Tussing.
One black cylinder, 12 times long as wide, moved fast along the
surface of the lake.

July 30, 1954; Los Angeles, California. 10:15 a.m. Witness:
Hughes Aircraft test pilots Englert and Peterson, flying a B-25
bomber. One metallic, pencil-shaped object flew slowly or
hovered for an unstated length of time.

Aug. 2, 1954; Westlake, Ohio. 5:17 p.m. Witness: ex-AAF B-17
gunner (19 missions) N.E. Schroeder. One thin, bright ellipse,
like polished metal, hovered for 5-8 seconds, dropped down 3,000′
in 3 seconds, hovered again and faded out after a total of 20
seconds in view.

Aug’ 6, 1954; San Antonio, Texas. 6 p.m. Witness: mechanical
engineer L.H. Hormer. One intensely white elliptical light
changed to yellow, then orange, then pink, four or five times
while flying straight and level for 5 minutes.

Aug. 11, 1954; Yoron Jima, near Okinawa. 8:55 p.m. Witness:
P.L. Percharde, electrical engineer and assistant manager of
Moeller Shipwrecker Co., of Okinawa. A line of blue lights,
underneath. a blue circle with a black center. Flew over ship
and climbed, illuminating and agitating the clouds.

Aug. 15, 1954; San Marcos, Texas. 10:20 p.m. Witnesses: USAF
Maj. W.J. Davis, Capt. R.D. Sauers, flying a C-47 transport
plane. One dark blue oblong object paced the C-47, veered away,
then crossed in front of it. Five minute sighting.

Aug. 24, 1954; Egilstadir, Iceland. 8:30 p.m. Witness: one
unnamed farmer. A cylinder, 2-2.5′ long, 4-5′ in diameter, made
a loud whizzing sound, flew straight and level fast, then slow,
then fell into sandbar.

Aug. 26, 1954; Danville, Virginia. 6:15 a.m. Witness: Rev.
W.L. Shelton. Two domed ellipses, 20′ long, 8′ thick, 10′ at
ends; glowing silver or orange. Hovered, then climbed side-by-
side while getting brighter. Observed for 2 minutes.

Aug. 27, 1954; Dorchester, Massachusetts. 1 p.m. Witness: E.A.
Srazdes. Seven large, white, teardrop-shaped objects turned
blue. Flew in line formation and increased speed during the 2
minute sighting.

Aug. 29, 1954; Prince Christian, Greenland. 11:05 a.m.
Witnesses: lst Officer H.G. Gardner, engineer J.V.D. Whitisy,
flying Royal Dutch Airlines DC-4 (PH-DBZ). Three or four dark,
lens-shaped objects veered north and changed position in
formation during the 10 minute sighting.

Sept. 4, 1954; Butler, Missouri. 3 a.m. Witness: J.
Faltemeier, CAA communications specialist. Twenty-thirty lights,
as if on a string, flew straight and level for 1.5 minutes.

Sept. 5, 1954; Butler, Missouri. 12:23 a.m. Witness: J.
Faltemeier, CAA communications specialist. One silver or white
object with a slightly swept-back leading edge and a following
exhaust, flew straight and level, then veered southwest to south
after 30 seconds.

Sept. 18, 1954; Kimpo Air Base, Japan. 5:55 a.m. Witnesses:
two control tower operators, a weather forecaster and a weather
observer. One round object, like polished aluminum, flew
straight and level for 11-13 minutes.

Sept. 21, 1954; Barstow, California. 1 a.m. Witnesses: two
local policemen, four U.S. Marine Corps police, one highway
patrolman. One red-orange ball giving off sparks, and a smaller
light, made a zigzag descent and then hovered. Total of 20
minutes.

Sept. 21, 1954; Santa Maria, Azores Islands. 9:45 p.m. Witness:
airport guard. One 10’x5′ light metallic blue, pecan-shaped
object with a clear glass or plastic nose having a door, and with
poles or aerials on the nose. Humming or whining, it hovered,
landed vertically, 50′ away. A blond man, 5′ 10″ tall appeared,
spoke in a strange language, patted the guard on the shoulder,
got in the object, hooked up his harness, pushed a button, took
off with the object’s nose pointed up, then levelled off and
climbed vertically. Sighting lasted 2-3 minutes.

Sept. 22, 1954; Marshfield, Missouri. 9 a.m. Witnesses:
private pilot J.N. Williams, E.J. Ash. A thin, translucent tan
asymmetrical boomerang-shaped object revolved, then tumbled down
behind some trees. Marks were found in the dirt. Sighting
lasted 15 minutes.

Sept. 23, 1954; Gatlinburg, Tennessee. 9:45 a.m. Witness: Dave
Owenby. Two bright silver, wheel-shaped objects flew from north
to south in trail for 2 minutes.

Oct. 13, 1954; Nouasseur, French Morocco. 10:05 a.m. Witness:
weather observer, following a balloon with his theodolite. One
round, flat, silver object flew straight and level for 30
seconds.

Oct. 15, 16 and 17, 1954; Kingfisher, Oklahoma. 8:45 p.m. Fifty
objects with illuminated bottoms were seen flying in a
V-formation, very fast, on successive nights. Only data is on
summary card.

Oct. 28, 1954; Miho Air Base, Japan. 5:32 p.m. Witnesses: USAF
pilots Lt. Col. O.C. Cook and Lt. J.W. Brown, on ground using
7×50 binoculars. One brilliant white, round-oval object climbed
in front of clouds, brightened, turned 90 to the north. Seen
for 45 seconds.

Oct. 29, 1954; Terciera Islands, Azores. 9 p.m. Witnesses:
four Portuguese nationals. One object, shaped like a stovepipe
with a center bulge and short wings (10′ long, 3′ in diameter, 3′
wings) having concave wingtips, and grey colored. Made a
gargling sound when hovering, then disappeared in the glare of
airplane landing lights. Sighting lasted 4-5 minutes.

Nov. 15, 1954; Augusta, Maine. 44 p.m. Witness: N. Gallant,
manager of radio station WFAV. Ten gold, circular objects flew
in vertical V-formation, straight and level for 3 minutes.

Nov. 19, 1954; Corvallis, Oregon. 4:15 p.m. Witness: P.J.
Gunn, assistant professor of art at Oregon State University and
ex-U.S. Navy aviation cadet. One bright white light hovered
8.5-9 minutes, then crossed 20 of sky in 3-3.5 minutes.

Nov. 28, 1954; Manilla, Phillipine Islands. 10:50 a.m. Witness:
one anonymous medical doctor. One flat-bottomed, domed object
(65-70′ across, 18-20′ high), bright orange with yellow discs
attached and an exhaust trail. Flew north, stopped, reversed its
course during 4 minute sighting.

Dec. 3, 1954; Gulfport, Mississippi 12:12 p.m. Witnesses: Mr.
and Mrs. S.P. Mellen. One translucent grey, round, flat object
rotated on its vertical axis at high r.p.m. for 30 seconds.

Dec. 7, 1954; Cape Province, South Africa. 1:15 p.m. Witness:
weather officer, using a theodolite. One white, semi-circular,
flat object with a dome flew from west to east, then turned
north. Sighting lasted 7 minutes.

Jan, 1, 1955; Cochise, New Mexico. 6:44 a.m. Witnesses:
instructor and student pilot in USAF B-25 bomber/trainer. A
metallic disc, shaped like two pie pans face-to-face, and 120-
130′ in diameter, paced the B-25, showing both its edge and its
face, for 5-7 minutes. Only item in case file was summary form.

Jan. 26, 1955; Lakeland, Florida. 6:15 p.m. Witness: J.M.
Holland. A black smoke trail made a circle. There was an
explosion and some objects fell. No further information in file.

Feb.l, 1955; 20 miles east of Cochise, New Mexico. 7:55 p.m.
Witnesses: Instructor Capt. D.F. Ritzdorf, aviation cadet F.W.
Miller in TB-25 bomber/trainer. One red and white ball hovered
off the left wing of the TB-25 for 5 minutes, then made a very
fast climb. Total time of sighting was 8 minutes.

Feb. 2, 1955; Miramar Naval Air Station, California. 11:50 a.m.
Witness: USN Cmdr. J.L. Ingersoll. One highly polished sphere,
with reddish-brown coloring, fell, then instantly accelerated to
1,000-1,500 m.p.h.

Feb. 10, 1955; Bethesda, Maryland. 10:03 p.m. Witness: E.J.
Stein, model maker at U.S. Navy ship design facility. One
object, shaped like a small portion of the bottom of the Moon,
with a radiant yellow color, hovered for 30 seconds. Its bottom
changed to a funnel shape. Total sighting lasted 1.5-2 minutes.

April 30, 1955; Travis County, Texas. 7:30 a.m. Witness USAF
Wing Intelligence Officer Maj. L..J. Pagozalski. Four black
objects in a cluster made a whooshing sound like a zephyr.
Sighting lasted 2-3 seconds.

May 4, 1955; Keflavik, Iceland. 12:38 p.m. Witnesses: Lt. Col.
E.J. Stealy, lst Lt. J.W. Burt. About 10 round, white objects,
one of which left a brief smoke trail, flew in an irregular
formation, some of them making erratic movements during the 5-8
second sighting.

May 23, 1955; Cheyenne, Wyoming. Midnight. Witnesses: USAF
Airman/Basic I.J. Shapiro and E.C. Ingber. During a 5 minute
period, two slender, vertical rectangles were seen low on the
horizon, and two ovals with tops (dark, with dark blue
illumination) flew higher.

July 29, 1955; Columbus, Nebraska. 10:45 p.m. Witness: Morrice
Raymond. Four orange flashing lights and one whIte flashing
light moved up and down like yo-yos for 5-6 minutes.

Aug. 11, 1955; Iceland. 11:45 a.m. Witness: 2nd Lt. E.J.
Marlow. Twelve grey objects, from cigar to egg-shaped, varied
their formation from elliptical to wavy line to scattered to
straight line to trail formation. Speed varied from hover to
1,000 m.p.h. Sighting lasted 3-4 minutes.

Aug. 23, 1955; Arlington, Virginia. 10:45 a.m. Witness: G.M.
Park, using a 400x telescope. Several orange lights moved singly
or in groups, circling and stopping during 30 minute sighting.

Sept. 3, 1955; Bellingham, Washington. Witness: observer
Saunders for Ground Observer Corps. One white pinhead moved
slowly across 30^ of sky in 15 minutes. No further information.

Sept. 7, 1955; Washington, D.C. Witnesses: two photographers,
one plate maker for the Army Map Service (one named Smith). One
glowing round object flew an arc for 1 minute.

Sept. 9, 1955; near Alcoa, Tennessee. 12 noon. Witness: M.N.
Dawkins, using binoculars. One brown, almost square object flew
with a circular motion for 10-15 minutes.

Oct. 8, 1955; Loogootee, Indiana. 4:38 p.m. Witnesses: R.D.
Prather, H. Ahern. One round, silver or white object flew
straight and level at more than 1,000 m.p.h. for an unstated
length of time.

Oct. 11, 1955; Pt. Lookout, Maryland. 4 p.m. Witnesses: B.
Hale, A. Ostrom. One round object which looked white in the
daylight and turned red with sparks toward the end of the 2.5
hour sighting, made a deep roar, unlike an aircraft.

Nov. 17, 1955; St. Louis, Missouri. 6:10 a.m. Witness: J.A.
Mapes. Twelve round, flat objects, silver on top and dark on the
bottom, flew in 4-deep formation, tipping in pitch and roll, for
45 seconds.

Nov. 20, 1955; Lake City, Tennessee. 5:20 p.m. Witnesses:
Operations Officer Capt. B.G. Denkler and five men of the USAF
663rd AC&W Sqdn. Two oblong, bright orange, semi-transparent
objects flew at terrific speed and erratically, toward and away
from each other. Observed by various persons form 4 to 15
minutes.

Nov. 25, 1955; La Veta, Colorado. 10:30 a.m. Witness: State
Senator S.T. Taylor. One dirigible-shaped object (fat front,
tapered toward the tail) object, which was luminous green-blue
and jellylike, appeared overhead diving at a 45′ angle,
then reduced angle to 30′. Object seen for 5 seconds.

Dec. 21, 1955; Caribou, Maine. 111 p.m. Witness: Roberta V.
Jacobs. One round, very bright gold, domed disc made a short
climb, rotated, hovered and then accelerated during the 6-8
minute sighting.

Feb. 12, 1956; Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada. 11:25 p.m.
Witnesses: F-89 pilot Bowen, radar observer Crawford. One green
and red object rapidly circled the aircraft while being tracked
on radar during 1 minute sighting. No further details.

Feb, 19, 1956; Houston, Texas. 6:07 a.m. Witnesses: crew of
Eastern Airlines Super Constellation. One intense white light,
moving 4-5 times the speed of the airplane, was evaded by the
pilot.

April 4, 1956; McKinney, Texas. 3:15 p.m. Witnesses: Capt. Roy
Hall, U.S. Army, ret.; Charles Anderson and others; some observed
through a 6″ telescope, others through a 55-200x telescope. One
fat, oblong object with two lines around its middle, remained
stationary for 6 hours.

June 6, 1956; Banning, California. 5:30 a.m. Witness: Mr.
Bierman. One thin disc with a small dome, shimmering silver,
hovered about 100 yards away for 8-10 seconds, then zoomed up.

Aug. 8, 1956; 20 miles south of Quartsite, Arizona. ll p.m.
Witnesses: attorneys W.B. Buttermore and J.W. Smith. One
blue-white pulsating light flew fast, straight and level, for 5-7
minutes.

Aug. 27, 1956; Juniata, Pennsylvania. 9:55 p.m. Witness: Mrs.
R.S. Pope. One bright disc with a clear dome flew vertically,
then north. A very cold breeze seemed to have been originated by
the object during the 3 minute sighting.

Sept. 4, 1956; Dallas, Texas. 9 p.m. Witnesses: U.S. Marine
Corps T/Sgt. R.D. Rogers and family. One large star, changing to
red color, remained stationary for 20 minutes, then went west at
200 kts. (230 m.p.h.). Sighting lasted 23 minutes.

Sept. 14, 1956; Highland, North Carolina. 1 a.m. Witness:
Scaly, N. Car. policeman O.S. Gryman. Fourteen yellow-to-red
round objects with tremendous exhaust, flew in a Vague formation
from southwest to east to northeast and back again, while
swoooping up and down. Sighting lasted 1.5 hours.

Nov. 1, 1956; 60 miles east of St. Louis, Missouri, in Illinois.
5:30 p.m. Witness: USAF Capt. W..M. Lyons, Intelligence Division
Chief (Aerial Weather Reconnaissance Officer), flying a T-33 jet
trainer. One orange light with a blue tinge, flew across the sky
for 2 minutes.

Nov. 30, 1956; Charleston AFB, South Carolina. 12:48 p.m.
Witness: USAF aerial navigator Maj. D.D. Grimes. One
unspecified object flew at an estimated 100′ altitude over water
for 10 minutes. No further details.

Dec. 31, 1956; Guam. 2:10 a.m. Witness: USAF lst Lt. Ted
Brunson, flying an F-86D jet interceptor. One round, white
object flew under the F-86D, which was unable to turn as sharply
as the object.

April 25, 1957; Ringgold, Louisiana. Military witness
Robertson. Case missing from official files.

June 12, ; Milan, Italy. 7:30 p.m. Witness: G.U. Donadio,
translator for export-import firm. One object “big as a hen’s
egg” flew very fast, zigzagged, hovered and revolved, then shot
up after 17 minutes.

July 27 or 29, 1957; Longmont, Colorado. Early morning.
Witness: J.L. Siverly. One thick disc, ice blue, with a top
like honeycomb (interconnected hexagons), hovered and rocked
below the hill tops for 10 minutes. Middle band was scalloped,
bottom had four kidney-shaped forms.

July 29, 1957; Cleveland, Ohio. 10:31 p.m. Witnesses: Capital
Airlines Capt. R.L. Stimley, First Officer F.J. Downing. One
large, round, yellow-white object dimmed once, crossed the bow of
the airliner, which then gave chase but was unable to catch it.
Sighting last 8 minutes.

July 29, 1957; Oldsmar, Florida. 11:45 a.m. Witness: E.E.
Henkins. One pale yellow fireball glided into the water and
exploded. Viewed for 1 minute.

Sept. 20, 1957; Kadena AFB, Okinawa. 8 p.m. Witnesses: S/Sgt.
H.T. O’Connor, S/Sgt. H.D. Bridgeman. One object, shaped like a
coke bottle without the neck, translucent and fluorescent. Made
four 5-10 second passes from north to south, with 4-5 minutes
between passes.

Oct. 8, 1957; Seattle, Washington. 9:17 a.m. Witnesses: two
U.S. Army sergeants. Two flat, round, white objects flew in
trail formation along an irregular path, frequently banking
during 25-30 seconds.

Nov. 6, 1957; Radium Springs, New Mexico. 10:50 p.m. Witnesses:
one Las Cruces policeman, one Dona Ana County Deputy Sheriff.
One round object–changing from red to green to blue to white–
rose vertically from a mountain top. Sighting lasted 10 minutes.

Nov. 8, 1957; Merrick, Long Island, New York. l0:10 a.m
Witness: Mrs. L. Dinner. One bar-shaped object, 3.5′ long,
giving off blue flashes, made a swishing sound. No further data.

Nov. 26, 1957; Robins AFB, Georgia. 10:07 a.m. Witnesses:
three control tower operators, one weather observer and four
others. One silver, cigar-shaped object suddenly vanished after
8 minutes.

Nov. 30, 1957; New Orleans, Louisiana. 2:11 p.m. Witnesses:
three U.S. Coast Guardsmen. One round object turned white, then
gold, then separated into three parts and turned red. Sighting
lasted 20 minutes.

Dec. 13, 1957; Col Anahuac, Mexico. 9:35 a.m. Witness: R.C.
Cano. Fourteen-fifteen circular, tapered discs, very bright,
flew in a formation like a stack of coins, then changed to an
inverted-V formation. Sighting lasted 20 minutes.

Dec. 17, 1957; near Grand Junction, Colorado. 7:20 p.m.
Witness: F.G. Hickman, 17. One round object changed from yellow
to white to green to red; red tail was twice as long as the body.
It stopped, started, backed up for 45 minutes.

March 14, 1958; Healdsburg, California. 8:45 a.m. Witnesses:
Mr. and Mrs. W.F. Cummings and one other. A 3′ round, black
object touched the ground and then took off. Watched for 2
minutes.

April 14, 1958; Lynchburg, Virginia. 1 p.m. Witness: USAF Maj.
D.G. Tilley, flying C-47 transport. One grey-black rectangular
object rotated very slowly on its horizontal axis for 4 seconds.

May 9, 1958; Bohol Island, Phillipine Islands. 11:05 a.m.
Witness: Phillipine Airlines pilot. One object with a shiny,
metallic surface was falling and spinning for 1.5 minutes.

June 14, 1958; Pueblo, Colorado. 10:46 a.m. Witness: airport
weather observer O.R. Foster, using a theodolite. An object
shaped like Saturn, less the bottom part; silver with no metallic
luster, flew overhead for 5 minutes.

June 20 ,1958; Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. 11:05 p.m. Witness:
Battalion Communication Chief SFC A. Parsley. One silver,
circular object, its lower portion seen through a green haze,
hovered, then oscillated slightly, then moved at great speed.
Watched for 10 minutes.

Aug. 17, 1958; Warren, Michigan. 7:05 p.m. Witness: A.D.
Chisholm. One extremely bright object shaped first like a bell,
then like a saucer, hovered for 5 minutes, flipped over and sped
away to the west-south-west. Sighting lasted 6-10 minutes.

Sept. 1, 1958; Wheelus AFB, Libya. 12:15 a.m. Witness: Philco
technical representative A.M. Slaton. One round, blue-white
object flew at varying speeds. First sighting lasted 2 minutes,
second lasted 1.5 minutes.

Oct. 2, 1958; Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. 2:30 p.m. Witness:
naturalist Ivan Sanderson. One dull-grey object, shaped like a
pickle with a flat bottom, flew erratically and made loops for 15
seconds.

Oct. 27, 1958; Lock Raven Dam, Maryland. 10:30 p.m. Witnesses:
Phillip Small, Alvin Cohen. One large, flat egg-shaped object
affected a car’s electrical system and caused a burning sensation
on one of its occupants. Sighting lasted 1 minute.

Nov. 3, 1958; Minot, North Dakota. 2:01 p.m. Witness: M/Sgt.
William R. Butler, medic. One bright green object, shaped like a
10 cent piece, and one smaller, silver round object. First
object exploded, then second object moved toward the location of
the first at high speed. Sighting lasted 1 minute.

March 26 or 27, 1959; Corsica, Pennsylvania. 12:45 p.m.
Witness: T.E. Clark. One dark red, barrel-shaped object, 20′
long, 6-7′ high, descended below some trees during the 3 minute
sighting.

June 18, 1959; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 9:30 p.m. Witnesses:
A. Cavelli and R. Blessin, using 7x binoculars. One brown,
cigar-shaped object came from below the horizon (close to the
witnesses) ascending to 40-50^ above the horizon in 4 minutes.

June 30, 1959; Patuxent River NAS, Maryland. 8:23 p.m. Witness:
USN Cdr. D. Connolly. One gold, oblate-shaped object, nine times
as wide as it was thick, metallic and with sharp edges, flew
straight and level for 20-30 seconds.

July 25, 1959; Irondequoit, New York. 1 p.m. Witness:
technical illustrator W.D. Neva. One thin, crescent moon-shaped
object with a small white dome in the center, flew at tremendous
speed for 5-10 seconds.

Aug. 10, 1959; Goose AFB, Labrador, Canada. 1:28 a.m. Witness:
Royal Canadian Air Force pilot Flt. Lt. M.S. Mowat, on ground.
One large star-like light crossed 53* of sky in 25 minutes.

Sept. 13, 1959; Gills Rock, Wisconsin. 1:05 a.m. Witness: R.H.
Daubner. One round yellow light, with eight blue lights within
it, and then five larger red lights, flew very fast vertically
while making a pulsating jet noise. Sighting lasted 10 minutes.

Sept. 13, 1959; Bunker Hill AFB, Indiana. 4 p.m. Witnesses: at
least two control tower operators and the pilot of a Mooney
private airplane. One pear-shaped object, colored white, cream,
and metallic, with a trail under it. Object showed little
movement during 3 hours. Attempted intercept by USAF T-33 jet
trainer failed.

Oct. (3rd or 4th week), 1959; Telephone Ridge, Oregon. 9:15 p.m.
Witness: department store manager C.A. Cissman. One bright
light approached, hovered about 30 minutes, and then was up and
gone in 2 seconds.

Oct. 4, 1959; Quezon, Phillipine Islands. 9:25 p.m. Witnesses:
USN Lt. C.H. Pogson, CPO K.J. Moore. One large round or oval
object, changing from red to red-orange, flew straight and level
for 15 minutes.

Oct. 6, 1959; Lincoln, Nebraska. 8:15 p.m. Witnesses: Lt. Col.
L. Liggett (Selective Service) and wife. One round, white-yellow
light made several abrupt turns and flew very fast for 2 minutes.

Oct. 19. 1959; P]ainvjlle! Kansas. 9:25 p.m. Witness: Capt.
F.A. Henney, engineering instructor at USAF Academy, flying a
T-33 jet trainer. One bright yellowish light came head-on at the
T-33, the pilot avoided it and the light dimmed. Sighting lasted
30 seconds.

Nov. 18, 1959; Crystal Springs, Mississippi. 6:25 p.m.
Witness: J.M. Porter. A row of red lights flew slow, then
speeded up immensely. Sighting lasted 5-6 minutes.

Feb. 27, 1960; Rome AFB, New York. 6:27 p.m. Witnesses:
control tower officer Capt. J. Huey and four other tower
operators. One light trailing a white fan shape, made a mild
descent for 3-4 minutes. 5:55 p.m. Witness: Charles

March 4, 1960; Dubuque, Iowa. 5:5

Morris. Three elliptical-shaped objects made a slight climb for
4 minutes. Film exposed during sighting showed no images of the
objects.

March 23, 1960; Indianapolis, Indiana. 3:35 a.m. Witnesses:
Mr. and Mrs. E.I. Larsen. A series of balls, arranged like an
“X” with one diagonal line, seen for 3/4 of a minute. Note:
little data on the case in the files.

April 12, 1960; LaCamp, Louisiana. 9 p.m. Witness: Monroe
Arnold. One fiery-red disc exploded four or five times.
Analysis of paint samples from explosion proved inconclusive.
Sighting lasted 2-3 seconds.

April 17, 1960; Richards-Gebauer AFB, Missouri. 8:29 p.m.
Witnesses: USAF Maj. J.G. Ford and Link representative A.
Chapdelaine, using a 48x telescope. One reddish glow made an odd
orbit for 2.5 minutes.

April 25, 1960; Shelby, Montana. 7-10 p.m. Witness: Mrs. M.
Clark. Five circular objects flew in trail formation, hovered
and accelerated and made sharp turns. Case file includes other
reports from Mrs. Clark for previous 3 years.

July 19, 1960; St. Louis, Missouri. 8:30 p.m. Witness: T.L.
Ochs. One round, bright red light flew overhead, stopped and
hovered, and then backed up. Sighting lasted 20 minutes. Note:
Ochs reported similar sightings on three following nights.

Aug. 23, 1960; Wichita, Kansas. 3::24 a.m. Witness: Boeing
aeronautical engineer C.A. Komiske. One round object with yellow
lights coming from what looked like three triangular windows at
bottom. Object was dull orange. Flew in an arc for 2 minutes.

Aug. 29, 1960; Crete, Illinois. 4:05 p.m. Witness: farmer Ed
Schneeweis. One shiny, round, silver object flew straight up
very fast for 18 seconds.

Sept. 10, 1960; Ridgecrest, California. 9:50 p.m. Witnesses:
Mr. and Mrs. M.G. Evans. Two light gray glowing objects, saucer
or boomerang-shaped, which swished when accelerating. Seen 1-2
seconds each.

Oct. 5, 1960; Mt. Kisko, New York. 7:37 p.m. Witness: E.G.
Crossland. One bright, star-like light moved across 120^ of sky
in 20 seconds.

Nov. 27, 1960; Chula Vista, California. 7:30 p.m. Witnesses:
Mr. and Mrs. L.M. Hart. One orange-red point of light made huge
circles and stopped during the 20-30 minute sighting.

Nov. 29, 1960; south of Kyushu, Japan. 6:38 p.m. Witnesses:
USAF Lt. Col. R.L. Blwlin (sp?) and Maj. F.B. Brown, flying a
T-33 jet trainer. One white light 8lowed and paralleled the
course of the T-33 for 10 minutes.

Feb, 27, 1961; Bark River, Michigan. 10:15 p.m. Witness: Mrs.
LaPalm. One fiery-red, round object, preceded by light rays,
slowed and descended, while her dog howled. Sighting lasted 10
minutes.

Spring, 1961; Kemah, Texas. Case missing from official files.

April 24, 1961; 200 miles SW of San Francisco, California (35′
50′ N., 125′ 40 W.). 3:34 a.m. Witnesses: aircraft commander
Capt. H.J. Savoy and navigator lst Lt. M.W. Rand, on USAF RC-l2lD
patrol plane. One reddish-white, round object or light, similar
to satellite. Observed for 8 minutes.

May 22, 1961; Tyndall AFB, Florida. 4:30 p.m. Witnesses: Mrs.
A.J. Jones and Mrs. R.F. Davis. One big silver dollar disc
hovered and revolved, then suddenly disappeared after 15 minutes.

June 2, 1961; Miyako Jima, Japan. 10:17 P.m. Witnesses: lst
Lt. R.N. Monahan and Hazeltine Electric Co. technical
representative D.W. Mattison. One blue-white light flew erratic
course at varying speed, in an arc-like path for 5 minutes.

July 7, 1961; Copemish, Michigan. 11 p.m. Witness: waitress
Nannette Hilley. One large ball flew slow, split into four after
45 minutes. Four flew close formation, descended and flew away
to the west. Total sighting lasted 1 hour.

July ll, 1961; Springfield, Ohio. 7:45 p.m. Witnesses: ex-air
navigator G. Scott, Mrs. Scott, and neighbors. One round, bright
light like shiny aluminum, passed overhead in 20 minutes.

July 20, 1961; Houston, Texas. 88 a.m. Witnesses: Trans-Texas
Airlines Capt. A.V. Beather, flying DC-3, plus vague report from
ground radar. Two very bright white light or objects flew in
trail formation for 30 minutes.

Aug. 12, 1961; Kansas City, Kansas. 9 p.m. Witnesses: college
seniors J.B. Furkenhoff and Tom Phipps. One very large oval
object with a fin extending from one edge to the center; like a
sled with lighted car running boards. Hovered at 50′ altitude
for 3-5 minutes, then flew straight up and east.

Nov. 21, 1961; Oldtown, Florida. 7:30 p.m. Witnesses: C.
Locklear and Helen Hatch. One round, red-orange object flew
straight up and faded after 3-4 minutes.

Nov. 23, 1961; Sioux City, Iowa. 9:30 p.m. Witness: F.
Braunger. One bright red star flew straight and level for 15
minutes.

Dec. 13, 1961; Washington, D.C. 5:05 p.m. Witnesses: C.F.
Muncy, ex-U.S. Navy pilot W.J. Myers, and G. Weber. One dark
diamond-shaped object with a bright tip flew straight and level
for 1-3 minutes.

Feb. 25, 1962; Kotzbue, Alaska. 7:20 p.m. Witnesses: one U.S.
Army private, six anonymous civilians. One red light, trailed 30
seconds later by a blue light. Sighting lasted 5 minutes.

March l, 1962; Salem, New York. 10:35 p.m. Witness: Mrs. L.
Doxsey, 66. One gold-colored box, 12-14″x3-4″, flew straight and
level across the horizon for 3-4 minutes.
.

March 26, 1962; Ramstein Air Base, West Germany. 1:35 p.m.
Witness: USAF Capt. J.M. Lowery, from an unspecified aircraft.
One thin, cylindrical object–l/3 snout, 2/3 tail fins–flew at
an estimated Mach 2.7 (2,000 m.p.h.) for 5-8 seconds.

March 26, 1962; Naperville, Illinois. 11:40 p.m. Witnesses:
Mrs. D. Wheeler, Claudine Milligan. Six or eight red balls,
arranged in a rectangular formation, became two objects with
lights by the end of the 15 minute sighting.

March 26, 1962; Westfield, Massachusette. 10:45 p.m. Witnesses:
many unidentified young people. One large red ball flew or fell
down, then went back up during 3-10 minute sighting. Note: May
26?

April 4, 1962; Wurtland, Kentucky. 0150Z. Witnesses: G.R.
Wells and J. Lewis, using 117x telescope. One small object
changing brightness, gave off smoke but remained stationary like
a comet for 6 minutes. Case missing from official files.

June 21, 1962; Indianapolis, Indiana. 4 a.m. Witnesses: Lt.
Col. H. King and tail gunner M/Sgt. Roberts, aboard a B-52 heavy
jet bomber. Three bright, star-like lights: one seen; 10
seconds later, two more were seen. Total sighting took 3
minutes.

June 30, 1962; Richmond, Virginia. 9 a.m. Witness: 13 year old
Meadors. One red, star-like light seen for an unspecified length
of time. No further details in files.

July 19, 1962. Bayhead, New Jersey. 9:30 p.m. Witnesses: C.T.
Loftus, H. Wilbert. Four or five lights darted about the sky for
7-10 minutes.

July 29, 1962; Ocean Springs, Mississippi. 11:20 p.m.
Witnesses: Mr. and Mrs. M.O. Barton. One bright cherry-red,
diamond-shaped object flew slow, hovered, made fast 1/2 loops for
l0 minutes.

Aug. 18, 1962; Bermuda. 5 p.m. Witnesses: owner M. Sheppard
and chief announcer A. Seymour of radio station. Three
dull-white, egg-shaped objects wavered as they moved for 20
minutes.

Sept. 21, 1962; WSW of Biloxi, Mississippi, in the Gulf of
Mexico. 7:37 p.m. Witness: fishing boat captain S.A. Guthrie.
Two objects, red and black with orange streaks, one as big as the
Moon, and the other smaller. Arced across the sky for 13
minutes.

Oct. 23, 1962; Farmington, Utah. 3 p.m. Witness: R.O.
Christensen. One grey and silver ball, trailing what looked like
twine with two knots in it, swerved, and climbed away at a 45′
angle, making a sound like a flock of ducks (rushing air).
Twenty seconds.

Nov. 17, 1962; Tampa, Florida. 99 p.m. Witness: F.L. Swindale,
college graduate and ex-USMC Capt. Three bright star-like lights
approached, hovered and bounced, then faded after 11-15 minutes.

May 18, 1953; New Plymouth, New Zealand. 10:30 p.m. Witness:
C.S. Chapman, 15. One white, fuzzy, flashing light hovered and
darted around for 4 minutes.

May 22, 1963; Pequannock, New Jersey. 10:45 p.m. Witness: Myra
Jackson. Four pink wheels spun or rolled very fast from east to
west in succession, each taking about 1 second.

June 15, 1963; 200 miles north of Venezuela (14* 27′ N., 69* 57′
E.). 10:39 a.m. Witness: 3rd Mate R.C. Chamberlin, of S/
Thetis. One luminous disc travelled at 1.5 times the speed of
satellite for 3-4 minutes.

Summer, 1963; Middletown, New York. 9:30 or 10 p.m. Witness:
Grace Dutcher. Eight-ten lights moved at random, then in an oval
formation, then singly, during the 1 minute sighting.

July 1, 1963; Glen Ellyn, Illinois. 8 p.m. Witness: R.B.
Stiles, ll, using a theodolite. One light, the size of a match
head at arm’s length, flashed and moved around the sky for 1.5
hours.

Aug. 11, 1963; Warrenville, Illinois. 10 p.m. Witness: R.M.
Boersma. One light moved around the sky for 20 seconds.

Aug. 13, 1963; St. Gallen, Switzerland. 8:04 p.m. Witness:
A.F. Schelling. One fireball became a dark object after 4
minutes, and then a bigger glow, a minute later, and finally
exploded. Note: same witness had another, undescribed, sighting
on Aug. 14

Sept. 14, 1963; Susanville, California. 3:15 p.m. Witness:
E.A. Grant, veteran of 37 years training forest fire lookouts for
the U.S. Forest Service. One round object intercepted a long
object and either attached itself to the latter or disappeared.
Sighting lasted l0 minutes.

Sept. 15, 1963; Vandalia, Ohio. 66 p.m. Witness: Mrs. F.E.
Roush. Two very bright gold objects–one shaped like a banana
and the other like an ear of corn–one remained stationary, the
other moved from west to north during 10 minutes,

Oct. 4, 1963; Bedford, Ohio. 3:32 p.m. Witness: R.E.
Carpenter, 15. One intense oblong light with tapered ends and
surrounded by an aqua haze, flashed and flickered while
stationary for 15 seconds.

Oct. 23, 1963; Meridian, Idaho. 8:35 p.m. Witnesses: several
unnamed students, including Gordon. One object shaped like a
circle from below and like a football from the side, hovered low
over the observers, making a deep, pulsating, loud, extremely
irritating sound, for 6 minutes.

Oct. 24, 1963; Cupar Fife, Scotland. No time given. Witnesses:
A. McLean (12) and G. McLean (8). One light moved for an
unspecified length of time. No further details in files. Note:
Project Blue Book chief Maj. H. Quintanilla told the youngsters,
in a letter, that this was “one of the most complete” of the
unexplained cases for the year.

Dec. 11, 1963; McMinnville, Oregon. 7 a.m. Witness: W.W.
Dolan, professor of mathematics and astronomy, and dean of the
faculty of Linfield College. One bright, star-like light
hovered, slowed, dimmed and flashed in 1 minute.

Dec. 16, 1963; 800 miles north of Midway Island (40* N., 175* 54′
W.). 5:05 p.m. Witness: unspecified persons aboard a military
aircraft. One white light blinked 2-3 times per second as it
moved very fast across the sky for 15 seconds.

April 3, 1964; Monticello, Wisconsin. 9 p.m. Witnesses: Mr.
and Mrs. R. Wold (he was a graduate student in anthropology).
Four huge red lights in a rectangular formation, with a white
light above, were near the ground, tilted and flew away after 3-4
minutes.

April 11, 1964; Homer, New York. 6:30 p.m. Witnesses:
physiotherapist W.B. Ochsner and wife. Two cloud-like objects
darkened; one shot away and returned during the 30-45 minute
sighting.

April 24, 1964; Socorro, New Mexico. 5:45 p.m. Witness:
Socorro policeman Lonnie Zamora. Watched object with flame
underneath descend toward the desert. Two small humanoids
observed near vertical oval on ground. Later watched object take
off with a roar, go silent and fly away. Burning and charred
brush found at landing sight.

May 9, 1964; Chicago, Illinois. 10:20 p.m. Witness: J.R. Betz,
U.S. District Court reporter. Three light green crescent-shaped
objects, about half the apparent size of the Moon, flew very fast
in tight formation from east to west, oscillating in size and
color for 3 seconds.

May 18, 1964; Mt. Vernon, Virginia. 5:15 p.m. Witness: civil
engineer F. Meyers. One small, glowing white oval split twice
after moving from the right of the Moon around to the left.
Sighting lasted 17 minutes.

May 26, 1964; Cambridge, Massachusetts. 7:43 p.m. Witness: P.
Wankowicz, RAF pilot and ex-Smithsonian satellite tracker. One
thin, white ellipsoid (3.5 times as long as wide) flew straight
and level for 3-4 seconds.

May 26, 1964; Pleasantview, Pennsylvania. 11 p.m. Witness:
Rev. H.C. Shaw. One yellow-orange light, shaped like the bottom
of a ball, was spotted in a field and chased down the road for 2
miles.

June 13, 1964; Toledo, Ohio. 9:15 p.m. Witness: B.L. English,
announcer for radio station WTOD. Three glowing white spheres,
glowing red on their sides, moved slow, hovered and then moved in
circles very fast, all the while making a low, rumbling sound.

July 16, 1964; 15 miles south of Houghton Lake, Michigan. 11:15
p.m. Witness: Northern Air Service pilot K. Jannereth. Four
white lights in a stepped-up echelon formation, were joined by
two more. They closed in on the airplane, then rapidly slowed nd
flew along with it for a total of 5 minutes.

July 20, 1964; Littleton, Illinois. 4:45 a.m. Witness: J.J.
Winkle. One 60′ diameter round-topped, flat-bottomed object with
a long acetylene-colored flame shooting downward, flew straight
and level, made a half loop, then rose up. Sighting lasted l
minute.

July 27, 1964; Norwich, New York. 7:30 p.m. Witness:
Duabert, engineering supervisor. One aluminum sphere with a
luminous ring, remained stationary for 4-5 minutes.

July 27, 1964; Denver, Colorado. 8:20 p.m. Witness: A. Borsa.
One white ball of fire, the size of a car, climbed slowly, then
speeded up. Sighting lasted 2-3 minutes.

Aug. 10, 1964; Wake Island. 5:16 a.m. Witnesses: aircraft
commander Capt. B.C. Jones and navigator lst Lt. H.J. Cavender,
in parked USAF C-124 transport plane. One reddish, blinking
light approached the runway, stopped and made several reverses
during 2 minutes.

Aug. 15, 1964; New York, New York. 1:20 a.m. Witness: S.F.
D’Alessandro. One 10’x5′ bullet-shaped object with wavy lines on
the rounded front part and six pipes along the straight rear
portion, made a “whishhh” sound. Witness’ dog growled during
.
sighting.

Aug. 15, 1964; Yosemite National Park, California. 8:15 a.m.
Witnesses: E.J. Haug, of the San Francisco Orchestra and the San
Francisco Conservatory of Music; and C.R. Bubb, a high school
mathematics teacher. Three bright silver, round objects, in a
stack formation, flew very fast, changing positions within the
formation. The sound of rushing air was heard during the 3-4
second sighting.

Aug. 18, 1964; Atlantic Ocean, 200 miles east of Dover, Delaware.
12:35 a.m. Witnesses: Maj. D.W. Thompson and First Pilot lst
Lt. J.F. Jonke, on a USAF C-124 transport plane. One round,
blurred, reddish-white object was on a collision course with the
C-124 from ahead and below. The airplane evaded the object.
Sighting las ted 2 minutes.

Sept. 10, 1964; Cedar Grove, New Jersey. 7:09 p.m. Witness:
chemist P.H. DePaolo. Four white lights, 3-4 apart, were seen
to the north, going west for 45 seconds.

Nov. 14, 1964; Menominee Falls, Wisconsin. 9:40 p.m. Witnesses:
Dr. G.R. Wagner, MD; and two girls. Three dim, reddish lights
flew through a 160^ arc in 5-6 seconds.

Nov. 19, 1964; 1,400 miles east of Tokyo, Japan (34′ 55′ N., 164*
05′ E.). Witnesses: unidentified military persons. One bright
white flashing light was travelling from horizon to horizon in 20
seconds.

Jan, 23, 1965; Williamsburg, Virginia. 8:40 a.m. Witness: Mr.
T.F. Mains. One mushroom or lightbulb-shaped object, 75-80′
high, 25′ diameter on top and l0′ bottom diameter; metallic grey
with a red-orange glow on the near side and a blue glow on the
far side. The object made a sound like a vacuum cleaner. The
witness’ car electrical system was affected as the object moved
away at an altitude of 4′. The sighting lasted 25 seconds.

March 4, 1965; Corvallis, Oregon. 9:23 p.m. Witness: W.V.
Harrison. Three lights rose from the ground, several seconds
apart. The next day, an oily spot was found at the site.

March 8, 1965; Mt. Airy, Maryland. 7:40 p.m. Witness: J.H.
Martin, instrument maker for U.S. Bureau of Standards. Six
lights flew overhead slowly for 3 minutes.

April 4, 1965; Keesler AFB, Mississippi. 4:05 a.m. Witnesses:
USAF A/2c Corum, a weather observer; confirmation by college
student R. Pittman not clear from available data. One 40′ black,
oval object with four lights along the bottom, flew in and out of
the clouds for 15 seconds.

May 7, 1965; Oxford, Michigan. 7:30 p.m. Witness: M.E.
Marshall. One light, like a satellite, split into two parts, one
of which was copperish color, then two more joined up. One
object may have been tumbling. Sighting lasted 1 minute.

July 6, 1965; Kiel, Wisconsin. 9:30 p.m. Witness: Mrs. E.R.
Hayner. One flashing light, like a satellite, was seen for less
than 1 minute. No further data was in the files.

July 25, 1965; Castalia, Ohio. 9:15 p.m. Witness: amateur
astronomer M.D. Harris, 16. One bright blue star crossed 90 of
sky in 10-15 seconds.

Aug. 4, 1965; Dallas, Texas. 9:30 p.m. Witness: J.A. Carter,
19. One light flew fast, straight and level for 12 seconds. No
further data in files.

Aug. 4, 1965; Tinley Park, Illinois. 11:35 p.m. Witnesses: two
unnamed 14 year olds. One light moved around the sky for 16-17
seconds. No further data in files.

Aug. 19, 1965; Cherry Creek New York. 8:20 p.m. Witnesses:
Mrs. William Butcher, son Harold, 17, and children. A large
elliptical object, with a reddish vapor underneath, came close to
the ground, then shot straight up into the clouds a few seconds
later. Radio drowned out by static, a tractor engine stopped.
When the object was on the ground, a steady beeping sound could
be heard. Afterwards, a strange odor was noticed, and the next
day, a purplish liquid, 2″x2″ marks and patches of singed grass
were found at the site. A bull bellowed and tried to break its
bonds.

Aug. 30, 1965; Urbana, Ohio. 10:30 p.m. Witnesses: M.A. Lilly,
N. Smith, T. Nastoff. One white ball, 5-8′ in diameter and
trailed by a 2-3′ light, hit the road 100′ in front of the
witness’ car, bounced and flew away. Sighting lasted 3-4
seconds.

Sept. 3, 1965; Exeter, New Hampshire. 2 a.m. Witnesses: Exeter
Patrolmen Eugene Bertrand, Jr. and David Hunt, and Norman
Muscarello. One large, dark, elliptical object with a row of red
lights around it, moved slowly and erratically around houses and
trees, while lights blinked in sequence. Farm animals were very
noisy. Sighting lasted about 1 hour.

Sept. 3, 1965; Damon, Texas. 11 p.m. Witnesses: Brazoria
County Chief Sheriff’s Deputy Billy McCoy and Deputy Robert
Goode. One triangular object, 150-200′ long, 40-50′ thick at
middle and dark grey, with a long, bright, pulsing, purple light
on the right side and a long blue light on the left side. Came
from distance to 150′ off highway and 100′ in the air. Purple
light illuminated ground beneath object and interior of police
car. Driver felt heat on his left arm. Initial sighting lasted
5-10 minutes. Second sighting.occurred later that night.

Sept. 25, 1965; Chisholm, Minnesota. 9:55 a.m. Witness: Bett
Diamon. Five orange lights in a row flew fast and made an abrupt
turn during the 1 minute sighting.

Sept. 25, 1965; Rodeo, New Mexico. 10 p.m. Witnesses: Dr.
George Walton, physical chemist, and wife. Two round white
objects flew side-by-side, at 30-50′ altitude, pacing the
witnesses’ car for 6 minutes.

Oct. 4, Middletown, Ohio. Wiitness: Tucker. Case missing
from official files.

Feb. 2, 1966; Salisbury, North Carolina. 11:15 p.m. Witnesses:
Mr. and Mrs. L.J. Wise. One silver, diamond-shaped object with
several balls constantly in very fast motion around it, and much
light. Object hovered over the trees for 3-4 minutes, while a
dog barked, and then zipped out of sight. Sighting lasted 1
hour.

Feb. 6, 1966; Nederland, Texas. 5:45 a.m. Witnesses: Mr. and
Mrs. K.R. Gulley. One yellow, lighted object at 500; altitude
and a pulsating red glow on the lawn. The house lights went out,
and high frequency bothered the witnesses’ ears. Sighting lasted
5-10 minutes.

March 20, 1966; Miami, Florida.. 12:15 a.m. Witness: USAF Res.
Maj. K.C. Smith, employee of NASA at Cape Kennedy. One pulsating
light which varied from white to intense blue made a jerky ascent
and then rapidly accelerated away to the north after 5 minutes.

March 22, 1966; Houston, Texas. 1:30 a.m. Witness: S.J.
Musachia. White flashing lights, and the air full of smoke. Lit
up witness’ apartment. Sound of “yen ” heard up close
during 4 minute sighting.

March 23, 1966; Temple, Oklahoma. 5:05 a.m. Witness: W.E.
Laxson. One large object, like a wingless C-124 transport plane;
75′ long, 8′ high and 12′ wide; with a bubble canopy on top. Sat
on highway, a man dressed in military work clothes entered, and
it rose after about 40 seconds.

March 26, 1966; Texhoma, Oklahoma. Midnight. Witnesses: Mrs.
P.N. Beer and Mrs. E. Smith. One flashing light buzzed their car
from the front then hovered. Sighting lasted l0 minutes.

April 5, 1966; Alto, Tennessee. 11:55 p.m. Witness: W. Smith.
One oval object with a dark top, appeared cone-shaped when
moving. It made a high-frequency noise during the 2.5 hour
sighting.

April 5, 1966; Lycoming, New York. 3 a.m. Witness: Lillian
Louis. One vapor-like sphere hovered and spun at low altitude,
shooting its exhaust onto the ground below. Sighting of 1
minute.

April 30, 1966; Sacramento, California. 3:15 a.m. Witness:
Anita Miller. One light moved around the sky for 2.5 hours. No
further detail in files.

May 7, 1966; Goodfellow AFB, Texas. 9:55 p.m. Witness: A/3c
W.L. Whitehead. One short, cylindrical object with pointed ends
and a yellow light at one end and blue light at the other, flew
straight and level for 35 seconds.

June 6, 1966; Spooner, Wisconsin. 9:30 p.m. Witness: Dorothy
Gray. Two domed discs with sparkling upper surfaces and square
windows in their tops, revolved above a lake, apparently causing
strange behavior of the lake water during the 25 second sighting.

June 8, 1966; Kansas, Ohio. 6:45 a.m. Witness: Max Baker. One
bright silver, cigar-shaped object, as long as an airliner,
buzzed the witness’ car. Sighting lasted 1 minute.

June 18, 1966; Burnsville, North Carolina. 12:30 a.m.
Witnesses: members of a Boy Scout group, including Sterrett.
One bell-shaped object with three flashing red lights hovered for
5 hours and was then joined by six others.

June 27, 1966; 400 miles east of Wake Island (19* N., 172* E.).
4 a.m. Witness: Radio Officer Steffen Soresen, of the S/ Mt.
Vernon Victory. One “cloud” expanded with a light inside, and
then accelerated away after several minutes.

July l1, 1966; Union, Pennsylvania. 7:45 p.m. Witnesses: Carl
Wood and Charles Hawthorne. One large (100′ wide, 20′ high)
bright red object with small windows and yellow lights. The
object emitted a humming noise, seemingly from the outside, and a
qrinding noise which seemed to come from inside. Observed for 1
hour.

July 25, 1966; Vanceboro, North Carolina. 1 a.m. Witness:
college student James Clark. One object which changed color from
orange to red to blue to green and back to orange. Followed
witness’ car at high speed, then stopped and hovered over the
car. Rose and flew up and out of sight in less than 5 seconds.
Entire sighting involved about 1 hour.

July 31, 1966; Presque Isle State Park, Pennsylvania. 7:25 p.m.
Witnesses: Douglas Tibbetts, 16; Betty Klem, 16; Anita Haifley,
22; and Gerald Labelle, 29. Square or hexagonal object with
edges lit or reflecting light, came tumbling down from right to
left. Stopped 5-10′ above the beach and settled heavily down;
circle of spotlights at top were visible when it was on the
ground. Sighting lasted 5 minutes. .

Aug. 19, 1966; Donnybrook, North Dakota. 4:50 p.m. Witness:
U.S. Border Patrolman Don Flickenger. Round disc with domed top,
30′ in diameter and 15′ high, colored white, silvery or aluminum.
Moved across a valley from the southeast, hovered over a
reservoir, appeared to land in a small field, then rose up into
clouds very rapidly. Sighting lasted 5 minutes.

Aug. 23, 1966; Columbus, Ohio. 77 p.m. Witnesses: Broomall and
Gilpin. One circular, luminous white object split into five
objects and all streaked away toward the west. Sighting lasted
15 minutes.

Aug. 26, 1966; Gaylesville, Alabama. 8:50 p.m. Witnesses: Mr.
and Mrs. Funk and their three children. A cluster of four small,
glowing, orange-yellow lights in a triangular formation, moved
from east to west for 4.5 minutes.

Sept. 1, 1966; Willsboro, New York. 2:45 p.m. Witness: T.H.
Ridman. One oval object with lights that flashed red and white
and occasionally blue, travelled west, then disappeared downward.
It returned, several minutes later, at which time a loud noise
was heard. The entire sighting lasted 30 minutes.

Sept. 6, 1966; Suffolk County AFB, New York. 6:50 p.m.
Witnesses: Stahl and Ladesic. One white cylinder of light came
from the east at high speed, stopped and hovered for 3 minutes,
and then turned and slowly disappeared. Sighting lasted 8
minutes.

Sept. 9, 1966; Franklin Springs, New York. 9 p.m. Witness:
Jacobson. One solid object, larger than an army tank, with
lights all around it, made a low humming sound and disappeared
into woods at the end of the 30 minute sighting.

Sept. 13, 1966; Gwinner, North Dakota. 7:30 a.m. Witness:
Rotenberger. One silvery-grey ellipse with a clear bubble
protruding from its top, hovered about a mile away, then landed
within 300 yards and took off very fast. It made a low-pitched
whine during the 5 minute sighting.

Sept. 28, 1966; Wilmington, Ohio. 3:38 p.m. Witness: Clarke.
Three round, oval-shaped, aluminum-colored objects with rotating
rings around them. Two remained stationary, while the third
varied its altitude during the 90 second sighting.

Oct. 5, 1966; Osceola, Wisconsin. Witnesses: several members of
one family. One small, bright orange, moon-shaped object
remained stationary in the northeast for about 20 minutes, then
suddenly took off very fast to the WNW.

Oct. 23, 1966; Southhampton, Long Island, New York. 6 p.m.
Witness: Mr Acquino. One object with arms in front of it which
sparkled like an arc-light. Traveled south along some power
lines, then turned southwest. Made a slight humming sound during
the 4 minute sighting.

Oct. 26, 1966; Cold Bay Air Force Station, Alaska. No time
given. Witness: civilian control tower operator Ralston. One
white object approached runway at 50′ altitude. Runway lights
were then turned on, and object accelerated and climbed away so
fast that witness was unable to use binoculars. Sighting lasted
3 seconds.

Nov. 8, 1966; Saginaw, Michigan. At night. Witness: college
graduate Annis. A group of lights that flashed and changed color
hung stationary, almost touching the road, and would abruptly
vanish during the 5 minute sighting.

Dec. 25, 1966; Monroe, Oregon. 33 a.m. Witnesses: civilians and
military persons. Three round objects, as large as cars, gave
off vapor, then became three bright reddish-orange lights. Blast
at beginning of 90 minute sighting pushed one witness against a
car.

Feb. 6, 1967; Odessa, Delaware. 8:45 p.m. Witnesses: Donald
and Marie Guseman. One large, Saturn-shaped object–5O’ in
diameter and 20′ high–with two bright lights, a green light on
one side and a red light on the other. Hovered motionless over
the trees, then slowly moved north and suddenly disappeared after
2 minutes.

Feb. 12, 1967; Grand Rapids, Michigan. 3:40 a.m. Witness: Mr.
Lou Atkinson. Four fluorescent, football-shaped objects, a dull,
almost grey luminous color; flew northeast in a very rigid
formation for 4-10 seconds. Made a chirping noise.

Feb. 16, 1967; Stoughton, Wisconsin. 9:11 p.m. Witness: Miss
Lynn Marsh. One light with faded edges seemed to follow observer
in her car for 5-6 minutes.

Feb. 20, 1967; Oxford, Wisconsin. 3:10 a.m. Witness: USAF
veteran/truck driver Stanton Summer. One orange-red object flew
parallel to truck for 2 minutes.

Feb. 27, 1967; Grand Haven, Michigan. 8:19 p.m. Witnesses:
Sheriff Grysen, wife and others. Large white light, with smaller
red and green lights seen to the sides. Made almost
instantaneous 90^ turn to left, shot out over road and stopped,
moving too fast to follow. Sighting lasted 1 hour, 11 minutes.

March 6, 1967; Benton Harbor, Michigan. 12:01 a.m. Witnesses:
Jerome Wolanin, assistant news director of radio station and
former policeman, and wife. One round saucer or oval-shaped
object with red, green and yellow lights around bottom rim which
pulsated red. Flew level, east to west, and was joined by second
object from west. First object opened top, second came over and
hovered for 30 seconds and disappeared. Sighting lasted more
than 40 minutes. Objects made hissing sound.

March 6, 1967; Galesburg-Moline, Illinois. 4:25 a.m. Witness:
Deputy Sheriff Frank Courson. One object shaped like a rubber
cup which is placed under furniture leg, with a dome set in the
cup. Bottom of object spun rapidly, rim pulsated red. Approached
witness and passed overhead at low altitude, making a hieeing
sound.

March 9, 1967; Galesburg, Illinois. 7:10 p.m. Witnesses: two
housewives. One object shaped like a pancake with a rounded top;
object was pulsating red, with red lights around its rim.
Approached witnesses and seemed to explode with a brilliant white
light that lasted 10 seconds and almost blinded them. Then it
accelerated to the north and disappeared.

March 9, 1967; Onawa, Iowa. 9:05 p.m. Witness: Jack Lindley.
One bright white, saucer-shaped object, as big as a jet airliner,
flew straight and fast to the east for 2 minutes.

March 22, 1967; Wapello, Iowa. 10:20 p.m. Witness: Douglas
Eutsler, 15. Fluorescent, solid, multicolored lights stood
still, then flew away at high speed after 1 minute.

March 24, 1967; Belt, Montana. 99 p.m. Witness: truck driver
Ken Williams. One dome-shaped object, emitting a bright light,
landed in a ravine. As the witness approached, it took off and
settled back, hidden from the highway. Sighting lasted several
minutes.

March 26, 1967; New Winchester, Ohio. 4 p.m. Witnesses: man,
woman, three boys. One oval object, which looked like copper or
brass with the sun shining on it, flew from southeast to
northwest with tumbling motion for 30 minutes.

May 17, 1967; Rural Hall, North Carolina. 8:30 p.m. Witness:
Red Ledford. One round, orange-colored object, similar in size
to a small aircraft, zigzagged back and forth over a jet that was
heading northeast for 5 minutes.

June 24, 1967; Austin, Texas. 3:12 a.m. Witness: artist Ray
Stanford. One solid, blue-white, elliptical object flew from
northwest to northeast and stopped, seemingly in response to
flashlight signal, for 1.5 minutes. The object then proceeded
along its original path at high speed and disappeared behind
clouds. Sighting lasted 9 minutes.

June 29′ 1967; Scotch Plains, New Jersey. 1:30 a.m. Witness:
truck driver Damon Brown. One oyster-shaped object–2OO’ wide,
and 25-30′ thick–with a huge red light at each end and one on
the bottom, and a row of blue lights along the bottom. Circled
m.n aircraft, hovering then moving rapidly, and then followed the
witness’ car for about 500′, veered south and departed at great
speed after 8-10 minutes.

July 10, 1967; Lizelia, Mississippi. 5:50 p.m. Witness: golf
pro Harold Washington (Capt, USMC, ret.). One object with a
dome, the top colored gunmetal blue, the bottom the color of old
lead. Moved east, crossed the highway tilted upward, moved to
the right, accelerated and disappeared into the clouds after 3-5
seconds. Object made a swishing sound.

Oct. 18, 1967; Lake Charles, Louisiana. 9 p.m. Witness: John
Herbert. One bright, fiery ball flashed four times while moving
east, just above the tree tops. Sighting lasted 1 minute.

Feb. 9, 1968; Groveton, Missouri. 4:20 a.m. Witness: Mr. R.W.
Bland. One object, 100′ in diameter, with concave sides having
“portholes” in the center of each gave off yellow-green light.
Hovered 25′ above ground, then moved rapidly toward the
southwest. Gave off pulsating sound, like a length of wire
whirled at high speed above the head. Sighting lasted 1-5
minutes.

Sept. 15, 1968; near Ocala, Florida. 9:30 p.m. Witness:
missionary pilot Jay Cole, flying a Beech C-45 twin-engined
utility plane. One light performed aerobatics for 15 minutes and
then vanished. A second light appeared, heading toward them on a
collision course, made a 90* turn and disappeared. Later, ground
radar told them a target was following them. Sightings lasted 15
minutes.

Nov. 23, 1968. Newton, Georgia. 8:05 p.m. Witness: Mr. Jones,
accountant. One oblong light, 120-150′ wide. Hovering 75′ above
the ground, it emitted a beam that lit the ground. Radio gave
off static, then car engine stopped. Light flew away vertically
and car engine restarted itself. Sighting lasted 3-4 minutes.

Jan. 17, 1969; Crittenden, Virginia. 3:24 a.m. Witness: Mr.
Roman Lupton, test facility mechanic. Several amber lights–one
of them blinking–in an elliptical formation, flew forward slowly
while moving up and down, then turned and disappeared after 2
minutes. Made a humming sound.

The post Project Blue Book Unknown Case Files, Complete List first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Project Blue Book Unknown Case Files, Complete List appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.