PROJECT BLUE BOOK

;
PROJECT 10073 RECORD CARD ;
1. DATE 2. LOCATION is 112. CONCLUSIONS
ia Was Balloon
19 Feb 58 Topeka, Kansas O Probobly eee
3. DATETIME GROUP 4. TYPE OF OBSERVATION SME ap iohy ey Nhs
~ O Wes Aircraft
local 7O.Ground- Vi suc © Ground-Radar G Probobly Aircraft
GMT 19/2200Z D Air Visual D Air-Intercept Rador GO Possibly Aircraft
0 Yes Q Prebably Astronomical
“<Q Ne Military a Possibly Astronomical
7. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 3. NUMBER OF OBJECTS | 9. COURSE O Other
ko Insufficient Data for Evaluction
QD Unknown
| 1-2 secs one downward
10, SRIEF SUMMARY OF SIGHTING 11, COMMENTS

Somet-like falling obj, orange flame,j;Probably accidental release of
size of dime. Appeared to have tail some obj fm a/c. Possible day-
four times diameter of obj. Appeared |light meteor, possible burst of

o disintegrate. WX balloon, Obj evaluated as no

threat. Case considered insaditi-

ATIC FORM 329 (REV 25 SEP $72)

= Te

cient data,

|

~

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY

BECTION OF UPPER ATMOSPNERES STUDIZS
I1GY OPTICAL BATELLITEI TRACKING PROGRAM
60 GARDEN STREET

CAMBRIDGE 38. MASSACHUSETTS

Soe:

cartaih deacses 38 Gresoce

Hgtrs, Air Techni cal Intelligence Center
Box 9307

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

Dear Captains:
+ SOF f +. hie ‘ : ,

“oly now have had 2 chance to look th 1rougn all the reports you
sent, and the one concerning the "“satellite-type sighting” f~ch
Denver interests me very wuch and I am gtving it the full “reat-
oment. It Glear that this could rot nave been any of the ‘nrer-
“f{ean satellftes, not only because of the =xcessive brightness, but
because no American satellite at present cculc be sen appreaching
from the northwest at the latitude of Denver. On“April 30th tr.

-. were no known RUS8=an Sputnik's up, but <ven had there been it
almost inconceivable ‘that objects that brignt’ would escape detes
tion by our Moonwatch teams. nis is a coprer; 89 much so; shat
I wish I had the time andthe OPE tunity’ te talk with these tv:
officers. It could be that\in cain sonversation some clue night
Poorer which is not apparent in their repert.

x

/I had an experience the Bina ign which may bear on this.

I hea’ been instructing my young @adgnter in figuring sidereal time
and we had gone out on the lawn to creck cur er lations when
there cam along a sputnik-iike objest---correct brightness, >
speed, correct color, and F almest stood azrast. There was r
sound. A few mirmtes later another such object came througn in

another direstion, and then 4 few nimites stX11 another, on hhe
third one I was able tO detect over ambient noises the so sf fet
motors. Lights were’ ‘not blinking. If the 2then object haa: not
gone through I might honestly be puzzled to this Qey as to whether

I had seen an unknown satellite. I didn't mew chat jets ever
carried such lights.

; \

‘ / .

“It is almost inconceivable two such experfenced tee mould
have made the mistake I had first made, dut strange things cc ‘asr-
pen, n the meantine, I am having this observation ecked acainst
aii other “unkmown sputnix's” that our teams irom sine to gime rem
ported. \

/ As to the other eases, which I am returning {I will re*turs ire
Denver ease very soon), we certainly sce to nave a fine, dur K
meteor otservations--five of them. Two others remsin one ‘

r -
a
object that was seen the game time on two nights just peior

~ £ 2% ‘ ; . . ~ a * . .
ri tw d rr * ~~ Pp? © a A tml we = 7-7 ~ —— . os m :
(pe phe OL mor TN t wf 3 ayes * & AG Ce es - Ly nd 127) } y vi re! v 7 Sa - .

—

Say, MWear-TNe poiny o1 sisnvin re BUY 28. | 28-C9 me tmat it was

s

somewhat higher than 60°. ir ere wes of course a very fine s« Den-
tacular object in the skye that time out, unfortunately, in +t}
southeastern sky. Ths | D tanne “Venus was at its brigntest in the
pre-sunrise sky; and I know from past experience how easily it
can be staken for ar unknown object. My snly readtion-—is to

que on the stated position and to sonsider ths possibility that
it was Verns.

The case of the “daylight msteor” is greatly ambiguous,
While a daylight fireball cannot be milled out, I would myself
favor the accidental release of some object from an aircraft. He
ever, mich hinges on the statement ‘orange flame”. If it really
was flaming then it looks as though we mist accredit this to a da:
light meteor. If the: light was simply a bright refleation of sun.
light; then. we have the other possibility. Im either case, there
is nothing hostile, and I say to this "*nsuffisient information te
be able to distincuieh between daylight meteor or object falling
from airoraft". I don't think it is worthwhile to pursue sty one,
although I think if I could talk to the chap a better analysis
might be made. It fust oscurs to me that perhaps the object mig git
have been a burst weather or cosmic ray balloon, with the reflec-
: tion from the trailing material acooanting for the "tail four tines
the diameter of object". In fact, I think this is a distinct
possibility since it occurred in the neighborhood of the municipal
airport from which, I suppose, balioons are isunched The time of
observation was 4:00 p.m., their time which. I believe, ia about
the time of such launcshings. So, three possibilities: daylight
meteor---part of aircraft---burated balloon, All harmless ~ut, I
now tend to prefer the iatter,

_ ©“ JY am looking forward to visiting you in your new quarters---
I hope in early June.

»

he 1 aR Re Bes . Cheers,

JAH: 1¢
Enels.

~ a =. * «#2 & & —* = * atom r