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