PROJECT BLUE BOOK

1% ARE PERSONNEL FAMILIAR WITH THE EFFECTS CAUSED BY AN INTERFERING SIGNAL? (& YES O NO
COMMENTS:

20. ARE PERSONNEL FAMILIAR WITH THE EFF

ECTS OF ANOM P
PERTAIN TO Tre Tene ae Cane EPrEC ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION (DUCTING EFFECTS) AS THEY

1) NO

21. HAS ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION (DUCTING EFFECT) BEEN ORSERVED TO
GROUND CLUTTER OF THIS RADAR AT THIS SITE? &% YES "2 NO ERTEND THE RANGE OF THE

COMMENTS:

—EE -——_—— owe —— ee ee ee ee

WAS ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION (OUCTING EFFECT) EXTENDING THE RAN
THE TIME THE TARGET WAG OOSERVED? CO YES One GE OF THE GROUND CLUTTER AT

COMMENTS:

—

23. HOW DID THE TARGET APPEAR IN SIZE AND SHAPE AS COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT TARGETS?

The same size, contour and shape except it was stationary, “

¢ *
— ee se ee ee ee ee ~- ee et te --; ~-=

24. PERFORMANCE OF TARGET:

CHANGED SIZE RAPIDLY

e, REMAINED CONSISTENT IN SIZE rr oO
b. SPEED WAS CONSTANT O SP EED WAS VARIABLE oO
¢. FOLLOWED CONSISTENT TRACK 0 APPEARED, DISAPPEARED, THEN |
REAPPEARED IN NEW LOCATION Oo
d. FUZZY COMPARED TO AIRCRAFT SHARP COMPARED TO KNOWN >
TARGET oO AIRCRAFT TARGET oO
®. SAME AS AIRCRAFT TARGET a .

25. WERE OTHER TARGETS (KNOWN) OBSERVED IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA, AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME
TIME AND AT THE SAME ALTITUDE AS THE UNUSUAL TARGET? YES ONO

IF SO, DESCRIBE. __ Aircraft were diverted to the exact arca to investigate,

—_—_——. — $$$ ~~ —- — —— —— -_-—-—- — — — —

-—— — — ——- ———— —

$a

26. WHAT TYPE INDICATORS ("A SCOPE, “B’* SCOPE, ETC.) WERE USED TO FOLLOW THE TARGET?
& scopes, PPI's, J Scopes es a De ee
DESCRISE THE SIGNAL: As a circular, well defined blip

WHAT “AS THE RADAR SCAN RATE? 4, RPM = Aoc (CPS-5-D) Manual Control (4821)

ee ee —

28. WHAT WAS THE FREQUENCY OF THE TRANSMITTER?
12 50 Nezacyeles (An/CPS-5-D) 2730 megacycles (MSQ-1) | z

29. DID ANY CF THE OBSERVERS HAVE ANY OPINIONS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE TARGET? ® YES OQ NO
IF YES, GIVE THEIR NAMES AND OPINIONS BELOW. Albert F, PERNA, Cpt - the target was a
permanent echo that had become displaced in location for one day due to tempsra-
ture inversions,
DOWNGRADED AT & YEAR JN TRRVATS
DECLASSIFILD Ar iER 12 ,HARS
DOD Dik 6200.10

ATIC FORM 332 (REVISED 25 NOV 1952)

30. IF SCOPE PHOTOS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, PLOT THE TARGET TRACK AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE. GIVE
THE TIME AND ALTITUDE (IF MEASURED) FOR EACH POINT PLOTTED, PUT THE NECESSARY RANGE SCALE

DOWNGRADED AT 3 \ #4 ig is

-* A

DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 Yrars

,

DOD DIR 5200.10

es

31. USE THIS SHEET FOR ANY COMMENTS, OPINIONS OR ADDITIONAL DATA NOT COVERED BY THE QUESTIONS

DOWNGRADED AT 3 YAK LN Oe AL.
DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 3° °° %
DOD DIR 5200.10

ATIC FORM 332 (REVISED 25 NOV 1952)

- =

: U

NCLASSIFIED =
Pope Air Force Base, South Carolina 10 December 1952

I. Deseription of Incident

' Brom 1420 to 2215 3 a ground radar station picked up an unidentified ob-
ject on its scope. It appeared as a stationary object with a slight circular
motion xhich did not cancel out when the moving target indicator was employed.
The sighting showed that its altitude was 6,000 feet at € 1/2 miles from the
station. Weather conditions were fair with alto cumulous clouds, no temperature
inversions present in thes area. Eight transiont aircraft flew through the area
during the radar otservation and an F-51 was directed to investigate. The pilot
saw. nothing unusual. The radar operators involved have had several years
experience.

II. Discussion of Incident

Photographs were taken of the PPI scope but have not been received by ATIC,

‘There is a possibility that local cloud formations may have caused a spurious

radar return, Other than this there appears to be no plausible explanation for
the incident.

III. Conclusion

Possibly weather phenomena. —

‘

WNGRADED AT 3 YEAR INTERVAIS:
DECLASSIFIED AFYFR 12 YEARS.
DOD DIR &2v0.10

fo... UNCLASSIFIED

j te , r | |
mene 6 | sommes UNCLA 4iFIEO

ATIC, Wri ght-Patterson AFB, Ohio, Subj: Unidentified Aerial Object
S-2 360.1 (23 Vee 52) lst Ind.

HEAOQQUARTSRS, 507TH TACTICAL CONTROL GROUP, Pope Air Force Base, Fort
Bragg, North Carolina, 5 February 1953

tO: Commanding General, air Technical Intelligence Center, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Onio

1. In compliance with basic communication attached is Air In-
telligence Information Report, same subject, 29 January 1953.

2. The Electronic Data Sheets have been withdrawn for future
utilization,

FOR THE COMMANDING OFFICER:

o “iff i “J Po
Pi ff f Fa ad >

( Peg 2 ¢ mee AA
1 Incl w/d Ghee Forms
Added 1 Incl “ Captain, USalF
1, Air Intell Info Rpt Adjutant >>?

WNGRADED AT 3 YEAR INTERVALSs
po DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS.
DOD -DIR 5200-10

HACLASSIFIED

a. Cy ont
= SP ade-

&
re

UNCIY “SIFIED

AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
BAMIB on10

In reply refer to 99 DEC 1952
AProlile ‘TAh=5

SUBTUCT: Unidentified Aerial Object

TOs Comnanding Oificer
Pope Air Force Base

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

1. In regard to your FLYOBRPT reporting a radar sighting of an
unidentified asrial object on 10 December 1952, 14202 hours, the Air
Technical Intelligence Center is forwarding eight Electronics Data
Sheets, one of which it is revuested be filied out by the radar per-
sonnel involved in the sighting. The remaining deta sheets can be
retained by your office in the event of future unknown elcctronic
detections and be sent on with the standard Air Force Form 112,

2. In particular reference to the subject sighting, it is requested
thet the following questions be answered and included in the Form 1123

a. Did the aircraft sent ont to intercept the object observe
it at any tine?

b. Did the object gain or lose altitude during the eight hours |
of observation?

c. \Vihat was the exact altitude of the temperature inversion
mentioned in the initial report?

d, Finally, were azimuth and elevation resdings taken fron |
the reder? |

3. Your cooperation in forwarding the PPI scope photographs and |
the A? Form 112 as exveditiously as possible would be appreciated by |

ts2 air Technical Intelligence Center since an attempted analysis hinges
on their receipt.

"OR THE COMMANDING GENERAL, ; |

COWALEE- Pi!

1 Incl c Pagar
Slectronics Data Sheets Maio 4h am NREDY
(sight) | Air Adi:slant General |
VOWNGRADED AT 3 ZAR INTERVALS: )

DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS

DOD DIR 5200.10 ‘Peres
UNCLASSIFIED “=

— 4 |
LO02i .4--

;

AF FORM 112—PART I

APPROVED | JUNE 1948
COUNTR

; United States

UNCLASSIFIED

REPORT NO. (LEAVE BLANK)

AIR INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION REPORT

—a—- - = ——

SUBJECT

Unidentified Aerial Object
—<« °° ° °° °°  — ] From (Apna) "728th AC & W Sq, 507th Tac Con Gp
Pops Air Force Base, Ft Bragg, N. C. Pops Air Force Base, Ft Bragg, N. C.
Date OF REPORT DATE OF INFORMATION "EVALUATION on
29 January 1953 9 Decemoer 1952 F-O
PAEPAREO BY (Officer) as r- = :

_ —_— — _— —_
| SOURCE

M/Sgt R, DeGORDIN AND OTHH3S

ALBERT F. PERNA, Capt., USAF

| P REFERENCES (Control numnber, cirective, report, ctc., as applicable)
| | (1) Air Intelligence Information Report, Subj: "Unidentified Object," 12 Dec 52
: SUMMARY: (Enter concise summary of report. Give significance in final one-sentence paragraph. Liat inclosures at lower left. Begin tert of report on AF Form 112—Paurt IT)

(2) Air Technical Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson, AFB Ltr, AFOIN-ATIAA-5,
Subj: "Unidentified Aerial Object," 23 Dec 52.

—---

1, Attached is a completed Slectronic Data Sheet as requested in paragraph 1
of reference 2 above,

2. The following questions and answers are included in compliance with
‘| paragraph 2 of reference 2 above,

a, QUESTION: Did the aircraft sent out to intercept the object observe it
at any time?
ANSVER: No

b, QUESTION: Did the object gain or lose altitude during the eight (8)
houwes of observation?
| ANSYER: Yes, 8,700 fest to 6,200 feet, and then to 4,400 feet,

c, QUESTION: What was the exact altitude of the temperature inversion
mentioned in the initial report?
ANSWER: 8,000 feet, 6,000 feet, and 1,800 feet.

d, QUESTION: Finally, were azimuth and elevation readings taken from ths

radar?
ANSWER: Yes, by the MSQ1 and the AN/MP-10.

| ALBERT F. PERNA
Captain, USAF

Ne Nasusre—

INCLS. Py, PH R, MCNAMARA
Electronic Gata Sheet APPROVED: ly -o-
/ a Squadron Commander
/ Jt vy NGRAL AY 4 : ry on
; : ECLASSIFI ni A PEN ‘ a “tet we “
| DOD Dik b200,30

JSTRISUTION BY CL'GIMATOR=—=—=~*~*~”C”CC.....COC~COCCCCCCTTT....CCC«‘C:;# --3 “ee

iAMir Technical Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio
UNCLASSIFIED

NOTH THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION AFFECTING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT, 50U 5S C.—
31 AND 32. AS AMENDED, ITS TRANSMISSION OR THE REVELATION OF ITS CONTENTS IN ANY MANNER TO AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON IS PRONMIBITED BY LAW,
1T MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY OTHER THAN UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AGENCIES, EXCEPT BY PERMISSION OF THE DIRECTOR OF
INTELLIGENCE, USAF, ,

Yr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 190-0-914951

Jue i x/

ee DATA SHEET

UND RADAR)

The purpose of this questionnaire Is to provide technical data for evaluating the report of

an unusual radar target or track. It is requested that it be completed as accurately as
possible,

When not filled in, the form is Unclassified. The reporting officer will use his own
judgement as to what degree of classification is required.

It is preferred that the answers to the questions be typewritten, however, if it will ex-

pedite the completion of the form, the answers may be printed la ink. If additional space
is needed, use reverse side of form.

1. STATION OBSERVING TARGET:
728th AC&! Sq, 507th Tac Con Gp

Organization
Pope AFB, Ft, Bragg, N. C.

Location -

2. DATE OF THIS REPORT:
3 Feb _Feb 53
Day

Month Yeoor

—_ _——  —.

4. NAME, RANK AND ORGANIZATION OF
REPORTING OFFICER:

ALBERT F, PERNA, Cantati

3. DATE TARGET OBSERVED:
Lecel Time

— i Lae oe Oo

Day Month Yoor

Tim»Lecol_0920_Hrs_ Time-Z 1220 4 “
5. EXACT LOCATION OF STATION (COORDINATES):

728th ACK. Sqdn
__567th Tac Con Gp

t N S90 W
6. OBSERVER DATE (LIST EACH OBSERVER):

No. of Years
Nome Duty Exp. in Rodor

Radar Operator 7

Aircraft Controller 5

c. DuUaN= ULSTAD Capt Aircraft Controller

D. 3ArDY SE, COBURN Capt Radar Officer

—_— —

ToPEcY IES! ___—«__— Cant Radar Officer

7. WAS A ¥!SUAL SIGHTING MADE BY ANY PERSONNEL OF THE STATION? O YES © NO

IF $C, GiYE NAME AND RANK OF ALL PERSONNEL MAKING A VISUAL SIGHTING AND A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF
WHAT THEY SAW:

Sizhted only on Radar Scope, not visually

DOWNGRADED AT 3 YEAR INTERVALS;

DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YE.
BOD DIR 5200.10 wines

luck. to Al 2, 9 Lb

ATIC FORM 454 (REVISED 25 NOV 1932)

wx——_—_—_ -_

UNCLASSIFIED

THE RADAR STATION MAKING A VISUAL SIGHTING AT APPROXIMATELY

9. RADAR SCOPE PHOTOS: 7
1S RADAR EQUIPPED WITH A SCOPE CAMERA? -----------------nn-nennennennee-neeensne nnn enneneeee O YES @No
WAS CAMERA OPERATIONAL? -------------------------------00---2nnewenenennecneneeneneneeeeseeee--=-f] YES Xf} NO
WERE SCOPE PHOTOS TAK EN? -------------------+--------0nnnennneennnn nnn n en nnnn ene rnenennenee ane -= YES ONO
WERE PRINTS OF THE SCOPE PHOTOS FORWARDED TO THE
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER? ------------0000sencceceacnnceeensencsnesnaneenanenennnnes (YES ONO

10. TRACK DATA:
WHAT WAS THE NUMBER OF THE TRACK? __Stationary Target Senate

WAS A PERMANENT PLOT MADE OF THE TRACK AT THE TIME OF THE OBSERVATION? & YES ONO
; 11. WERE AIRCRAFT SCRAMBLED TO INTERCEPT THE TARGET? & YES ONO
IF SO, WERE THE AIRCRAFT BEING OSSERVED ON THE SCOPE AT THE SAME
TIME AS THE TARGET? @ YES O NO
12. WERE ANY NEARBY RADAR INSTALLATIONS QUERIED WHETHER THEY HAD OBSERVED
THE SAME TARGET OR TRACK YES ONO

IF SO, WHICH STATIONS? __ 728th AC&ZY sq 159-1, Radar test station, Fort
* ON» 3 iat ee ‘i alles

13. WAS THE TARGET OBSERVED ON SEARCH RADAR? >» YES ONO
If $O, WHAT 1S THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE EQUIPMENT? AN/CPS-~5-—D AN/MP3-10

_—__—S- ———_-— -- - - — — --— — —_. — —— — ————_—

14. WAS THE TARGET OBSERVED ON HEIGHT FINDING RADAR? G@ YES ONO
\F $O, WHAT |S THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE EQUIPMENT? MS' AN/{P 10

—— --—

——_ - ——_ > -——- 2

_—_

HAVE THE?E SEEN ANY RECENT MAINTENANCE DIFFICULTIES? O YES NO

If $0, CESCRIBSE. —......... ae

hyrat -sa_{o?S— ~ Sani Thyratres

—

—

16. a TYF = wo es a) SEARK G ,» HAR’ TUBE, ETC.) 1S USED IN THE RADAR EQUIPMENT?

—_——— — —_- - —_— _—- _ —$_——_ —— —

—_-_ _———— -_— te

17. WAS THE AFCO (AUTOMATIC FREQUENCY CONTROL) CIRCUIT OPERATING PROPERLY? YES ONO
COMMENTS: =

18. HAS INTERFERENCE FROM ANOTHER RADAR SET BEEN OBSERVED RECENTLY: O YES NO
COMMENTS:

- —_-— - - -

—_-c +

ATIC FORM 332 (REVISED 25 NOV 1952)