PROJECT BLUE BOOK

1. DATE - TIME GROUP 2. LOCATION

rm, /0! . Span’ Walle ar |

10. CONCLUSION

r°OO°)?D \mNT
ido ews ot be

5. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION (11. SRIEP SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

_- . - mn
--* . 4 + . :

6. TYPE OF OBSERVATION

v —

7. COURSE

8. PHOTOS

oO Yee

9. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

.

FORM
FTD sep63 0-329 (TDE) previous editions of this form may be used,

a i ea ee

% HAVE YOU HEARD OF ANYONE NOT 4T THE RADAR STATION MAKING A YISUAL SIGHTI iz.
THE SAME Time THE RADAR CONTACT WAS MADE?” CL) YES” CENO SIGHTING AT APPROXIMATELY |

1F SO, GIVE NAME AND ADDRESS.

———-

_—- —_ _—_—

| 9. RADAR SCOPE PHOTOS:

1S RADAR EQUIPPED WITH A SCOPE CAMERA? -------cce-e-ceeneeeneceeenneees a a eT a
WAS CAMERA OPERATIONAL? -------- a ee Re ee reeoss YES & |
WERE SCOPE PHOTOS TAK EN? -~-~---------200cce02--ennceees oe aan {crrteueneeomcse OP) VES BNO |
WERE PRINTS OF THE SCOPE PHOTOS FORWARDED TO THE
po Me me Oe ERT le Ba i et ee Py cs YES 3 NO

10. TRACK DATA: | |
WHAT WAS THE NUMBER OF THE TRACK? _“ueiooN said disrecsard givine if a track Jo, ss
WAS A PERMANENT PLOT MADE OF THE TRACK AT THE TIME OF THE OBSERVATION? OYS$s QNo

| li. WERE AIRCRAFT SCRAMBLED TO INTERCEPT THE TARGET? O Yes WNo
\F SO, WERE THE AIRCRAFT BEING O8SERVED ON THE SCOPE AT THE SAME
TIME AS THE TARGET? O YES 9 NO

12. WERE ANY NEARBY RADAR INSTALLATIONS QUERIED WHETHER THEY HAD O8SERYVED
THE SAME TARGET OR TRACK? CX YES ONO
'F SO, WHICH STATIONS? | ‘er aes ae

| _.____*“ashbreok and Jalahad. 4 oe

33. WAS THE TARGET OBSERV<O ON SEARCH RADAR? TXKYES NO

1F SO, WHAT IS THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE EQUIPMENT? _ - a

; aa =

_— e. AN/FPS } ri in

‘4. WAS THE TARGET OBSERVED ON HEIGHT FINDING RADAR? O YES NO
| i? SC, WHAT IS THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE EQUIPMENT? ‘

- -_—

-——_—— _—__ — _ —

1S HAVE THERE BEEN ANY RECENT MAINTENANCE DIFFICULTIES? O Yes <2 NO
IF SO, DESCRIBE. — tdaiilenn '

seserstnspnesinaenttectoueaiessneiani —

— = —E

—_——_--- —

16. WHAT TYPE MODULATOR (i.€., SPARK GaP, HARD TUBE, ETC.) iS USED IN THE RADAR EQUIPMENT?

_ ee ee ee ee lt ee —

f 7
ws 2 a eee ” '

—— -_—— es

acti aero Sn Ss ee a rPaerF) — <— — SS eee a a - - - _—
— _~- ~- _- — _ -—-——- — —]
(17. WAS THE AFC{AUTOMATIC FREQUENCY CONTROL) CIRCUIT OPERATING PROPEALY? “ ¥E$S sRNO |

— 22 ee _—_—* - - . ~ -
-~- - - = SS 92? ag WE

CS lel

“getty

;
| 19 ARE PERSONNEL FAMILIAR WIT’ THE EFFECTS CAUSED BY AN INTERFERING SIGNAL? XC YES (NO |
COMMENTS: as |
——$______— _— —— - a Le
20. ARE PERSONNEL FAMILIAR WITH THE EFFECTS OF ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION iat rew ie 3
PERTAIN TO THIS TYPE OF RADAR? ot YES [) NO ON (DUCTING EFFECTS) AS THEY |
a = ™ —_— —
21. HAS ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION (ODUCTING EFFECT) BEEN OBSERVED TO EXTEND THE RANGE OF TH
GROUND CLUTTER OF THIS RADAR AT THIS SITE? “CL YES [() NO i
COMMENTS:
22. WAS ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION (DUCTING EFFECT) EXTENOING THE RANGE OF THE GROUNO cRaT |
THE TIME THE TARGET WAS OBSERVED? Cl YES “LENO sogiiaalh linden |
COTE INT Se ote 2 — S00 se ee ee ee Se _—
aa eee ee ee ee i. Tee ee eT eee ae
nen “ sathsthdiilceitibcnaisabbaiis » wai ae
| 23. HOW DID THE TARGET APPEAR ti SIZE AND SHAPE AS COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT TARGETS?
}
ae ee ee ea a Sites Tee ore ee ae a ut ns
rigs" 3. 4~3n8 i nee (Ap: _ > simatly). “ " ” ™ - - ——

24. PERFORMANCE OF TARGE i
e. REMAINED CONSISTENT iN ZE CHANGED SIZE RAPIOLY

a Oo
b. SPEEO WAS CONSTANT 0% SPEED WAS VARIABLE O
¢. FOLLOWED CONSISTENT FM ACK “2 APPEARED, DISAPPEARED, THEN
REAPPEARED IN NEW LOCATION oO
d, FUZZY COMPARED TO A\"CR\FT SHARP COMPARED TO KNOWN :
TARGET ‘s AIRCRAFT TARGET G
e. SAME AS AIRCRAFT TARGET 3 .

——.

25. WERE OTHER TARGETS (K!OwN) OBSERVED IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA, AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME
TIME AND AT THE SAME Ai. TUDE AS THE UNUSUAL TARGET? OF YES JNO

iF SO, DESCRIBE.

— - a ee ee ee re - 2 + a

eS —

-_-—

) hs oa

| 26. WHAT TYPE INDICATORS ("*A’* SCOPE, ‘*B’* SCOPE, ETC.) WERE USED TO FOLLOW THE TARGET?
Jus* 2a PPI Scone

—_—

i
'
;
| DESCRISE THE SIGNAL:

27. WHAT WAS THE RADAR SCAN RATE? 343 REM

[a =e Bow ie, => See a a on ee =n
40% RAT iA~AS HE PREGUENCY JF THe TRANSMITTE 2?
;
; ee
| — ot 4+={9 MS re re =e one errors oe - = ee is ee ee ete Ns eae Se
;
lig ne) ay ea a SERIE IY ge ON TRI CASEIN wie WK kam -
| 27. DIO ANY OF THE OBSERVERS HAVE ANY OPINIONS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE TARGET? O YES OC NO
t© YES. GIVE THEIR NAMES AND OPINIONS BELOW,
— — -_--- ~ -_— ~ —- — a a -_—- _ _—--—-- —

“+e © eee ee = 77 + eer em ee ew

—— —<- =.

a ;
J ’
f . 4 + os OY
———_— ene Se ees.

wee ee

THE OHlO STATE UNIVERSITY

Howaap L. Bevis, President

COLUMBUS i090

EMERSON McMILLIN CBSFRVYATORY

April 9, 1953

lst Lieutenant Pont. Olsson
richtePpatterson Air Fore? Fase
Dayton, Oh Lo

Dear Fi rst Lieute ~b an nv:

Thank you for your letter and comments. I too think that we are
cettine Somenlice. this svetem of we ly ravorting ahd =) et > on
UP~-«rives continuity. ith your aid I should like to maxe a coliection of the
truly unknown cases with their follow uns so that a true scientific evaluation
can someday te mada. "seretolfcre there has tean so much frustration. “ithout a
follow up on critical potiuts tne cvest cases had little scientific value. I want

to get to the ottom of the natural phenomena behind all this. if this is pervsibl

We should in time be atle to set up some e~perinents to demonstrate
these phenomena,and thie will be the real proof of the puddine. This can come

only be selecting pra cr caves and letting the majority of them go by the boards.

X hope that you will continue with this work and that we can have
cecasional meetings.

Well,-here ;5e5 on this batch of 16 March. Of the 12 cases in this
batch, 4 were without j :sstion Venus, and @ Sth might have been. Two have in-
sufficient data and 2 ums referring to the same incident seem to be worth definite
Zollow up. wv it

Just for the record, the Venus cases were March 6 (Leeds Center), 8,20
and ll. Those of 6 Erie Penn. and 7 March seem most probable to have been some
unknown light aircraft.

New to these that are of some interest, the most important is 5 Jarch,
at Shaw AFB. Has the detailed report come yst? I should like very much to see this.
I particularly wonder how the object could have speed 200 mph and still have been
observed 1 hour. Very iaportant here to estatlish identicalnese of visual and radar
Sightings. Is the sightings of the same date reported thru Shaw AFB, Sut sean at
Congaree AFB a few hours later refer to the same thing?

Pt 4 * . ~ ~~, a, o 7 ,* a] i ee or ’ . - - ' -
~ 1 rs ;srea 73 Fa We« 3 Ba 3: Gv - . Alo yey c nf LL *4 : 7) -~ - <3 ° —
rweret Ae yee eo ee Ot wat 8 ee a wesrsebonaianadndelitnnn guar abeans == PPCE MG ees ne
P as _- ek = « Spor ver, Ana Lala.) }
sr . > ..* i= ea i" 375 : : te . . eo. ro . od a : ae
on 3 March, Luxe AFB, was tha 30 feet of gun cacera film ever develoveil
“ a he > : ot a i ll. -- ! - : - oo rp a & ue
Questions io Lt Pera.sos 3 vO seep Tha i £¥ 204 copa 2s Of whl? . ¥ : Phar. ;

.* ey a Jee .

. DATE «TIME GROUP 2. LOCATION

7 om 4 ) 53 27/10162
$SU2CE

NUMBER CF OBJECTS

5S. LEMGTH OF CASERYVATION [11. BRIE SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

* *2 rs e s . :
’ : rm. , i 2 “e. ~~ . 4. ** : ‘ :
t Delt eC red on radar scone c Ly : ty 4 -

&. TYPE CF OBSERVATION

7. COURSE

8. PHOTOS

S Yeo
me

9. PMYSICAL EVIDENCE

3 Yes

& Me

FOR
FTD sep 63 9-329 (TDE) Previous editions of this form may de weed,

COORDINATION

INSERT
ORGNL CODE AND
FULL 3 Pa

‘
At TLE /eGiee

10 MAR t9483

fH r Aes ANOIN-ATIAE-5
re Pd
<7 yn SUBIZCTs (Unel) Radar Sighting of Unknown Aerial Object
ae Tas Commanding General
roe 29th Air Uivision
iL, “A. oe ATTNs Intelligence Division
pi | Jae Great Falls Air Force Jase
Kay i an Great Palla, Montana
Ae
we . arr
git | 1, Reference the sighting of am umidentified flying object by

coder at your station om or about <7 Februsry 1953 witnessed by radar

1 while monitoring locel air traffic. In an attempt t uncover

a logical explanation for such observations, the air Teshnical Intelli-
Center bas developed a questionnaire for sightings made by ground
when acowrately completed by the raiar technicians involved,
vader spocdaliste with an adequate picture of the ciroum
surrounding the contact.

26 ATIO would appreciate, therefors, the completion and forwarding
the inelosed Klsotronies Data Sheet at your earliest possitie cone
eo thet snalysis of the subject sighting can begin.

FOR THE COMMANDING GENERAL

Data Sheet ROBERT C. BROWN
NMzjo , USAF
Air Adi, Gen.

°c | DESIGNATE AUTHD OFFICE oF Record |

\MC Perm 4 Rev |? May 58) Supersedes AMIC Form 4, Rev 1 Ape 44, which will be ased. Alr Poreee-WPAPFB-L-22 IUL 32 400M

nn ne ee ee eee eee eee

~, ~

| ~‘2°ECTRONICS DATA SHEET 4
(GROUND RADAR) ‘

The pucpose of this questionnaire is to provide technical data for evaluating the report of

an unusual radar target of track. It is requested that it be completed as accuracely as
poasible.

ee

When not filled ia, the form is Unclassified. The reporting officer will use his own
judgement as to what degree of classification is required.
Ic is preferced thai the answers to the questions be cypewritten, however, if lt will ex- |
pedite the compiction of the form, the answers may be printed ia ink, if additional space |
is needed, use reverse side of form.

onl ees = —

l STATION OBSERVING TARGET: 2. DATE OF THIS REPORT:
| waneafish = - -_—- -- a0 Jars Mare a1953 35 } sis Sts |
Organ) cation Day Month Yeor
LZ wid Suadron aneuqunnnnneaaia
| ac Lecation | ;
YJooalM., /ontana - i a! — ee -_ =
3. DATE TARGET OBSERVED: 4. NAME, RANK AND ORGANIZATION OF |
. REPORTING OFFICER: }
Local tine {J !
2h. Hebe 1953. Ztime ; = ,
Day Month Yoar i j

gS eee a ee ee fhe ots aa . |

EXACT LOCATION OF STATION | OORDINATES):

5.

, a? 25 ed

~~ -e N

& OSSERVER DATE (LIST EACH OASERVER):

No. of Years

Name Rank Duty Exp. in Rodar
A. SRSHER, BARL We A/1o 46 | aa - a | aS

—_- --—_—_-- - -- _- ee eee ——— —_ —_

7. WAS A VISUAL SIGHTING MADE BY ANY PERSONNEL OF THE STATIUN? O YES (NO
| IF SO GIVE NAME AND RANK OF ALL PERSONNEL MAKING A VISUAL SIGHTING AND A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF
WHat THEY SAW:

—
— —_— — -

~~ ee ew ee eee - ——. =}