PROJECT BLUE BOOK

-— ee &

‘ial dee tok eae

ave. % PROJECT 10073 RECORD CARD .

1. DATE 2. LOCATION 12. CONCLUSIONS
0 Wes Ball :
1l Sep 61 San Diego, Calif 0 Probebly Balloon
3. DATE-TIME GROUP 4. TYPE OF OBSERVATION O Possibly Selleon
O Wes Aircraft |
Loco} 9 PM | XH Ground Vi sual O Ground-Reder CO Probably Airereft |
GMT 12/050 0 Air Visual O Air-Intercept Redar GO Possibly Aircraft
5. PHOTOS OUR O Was Astronomical
0 Yes O Probably Astronomical
X18 Ne Civilian 0D Possibly Astronomicel
7. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 8. NUMBER OF OBJECTS ew
MK Insufficient Dave fer Evelvetion
1 O Unknown

.

10. BRIEF SUMMARY OF SIGHTING Large UFO passed over 11, COMMENTS Info received in ltr. Feb 62.
Dan Diego. kag Lady saw it. Not imagination. No investigation made km due to time lag.

Larger than 6 jets and faster than anything Case listed as insufficient data.
U.S. can make. Creseent shaped with. Flashing

and rotating light.

ATIC FORM 329 (REV 26 SEP 52)

die Rd Br lind dais et

dt” sail 1 ws oS JP rere rT" 5 oe ~

if
|

February 20, 1962

San Diego 3, California

| Chief of Information
Department of the Air Force
Washington 25, D. C.

REFERENCE: DOD Release No. 179-62, February 6, 1962
Air Force UFO Report

Gentlemen:

This letter is in reply to the above mentioned news release issued by
the Department of Defense on February 6, 1962, regarding Air Force
Unidentified Flying Object Report No. 179-62 and in answer to my letter
of February 7, 1962.

I appreciate your reply but cannot agree with you. News releases will not
convince the public that flying saucers do not exist.

Since you think flying saucers are so unimportant, why do you bother issuing
a five-page news release on the subject? Obviously, it shouldn't be worth
the paper or time. Since you did bother with a five-page release, apparently
there is something to be concerned about. You contradict yourself throughout
the release. First, you assume that all civilian sightings are mirages,
reflections, lights, balloons, etc., and then you state that all UFOs

should be reported to the nearest military base as soon as possible! Why?
You are mistaken in claiming that valid sightings of UFOs always concern

the defense of the United States. Why not give your real reasons?

Why confuse people? You call your office the "Office of Aerial Phenomena."

This way, people get confused with the "National Investigating Committee on
Aerial Phenomena.” However, we are not confused. Perhaps if you called

your office the "National Investigating Congress on Aerial Phenomena,” people
would be even more confused.

On Page 2 you give a UFO Report Evaluation by Category and Percentage Breakdown.
I notice that 175 of the sightings were considered “astronomical.” Of course,
since you call most UFOs reflections of Venus or meteors, this is understandable.

a a ~e ° 9 : a2ae . tt : E Ly, ae ere Ll =, .
As for the 99 with "insufficient data", that leaves quite a wide margin,
doesn't it?

Since these so-called objects do not give any indication of threat to the

national security (your statement), why is the Department of Defense issuing

news releases on the subject? Why are photographs and other data confiscated

from people who have evidence of flying saucers? Something is not quite right here.

(bial titi Gil. my hai aw in J ot : " : ' |

ae et, ee eee

je A ee

a Ba

Why insult expert civilian pilots, radar operators, and corroborating
expert witnesses by stating they are "startled by the appearance of

weather balloons"? You know as well as I do of night flying training,
instrument flight, and of the physico-psychological effects of "staring

at fixed lights." Furthermore, pilots do not gaze at distant lights

for long periods of time. What about the times that the pilots AND
passengers have seen "round, metallic objects with lights" circling the
planes and performing unusual feats of which we are uncapable? I suppose
this is "mass hallucination.” However, it's ridiculous to state that pilots
and passengers “see” exactly the same hallucination.

I myself have noted many times Navy jet fighters circling at high altitudes,
and never yet mistook them for UFOs. They don't look round no matter how
high they fly.

Paragraph 2 on Page 5 gives “firework displays and flares" also as being
called UFOS. ---------8-----+--------- +--+ eee This needs no comment!

On September 11, 1961, at 9:00 p.m. a large UFO passed over San Diego.

I saw it! It was not imagination, "sun or moon dogs, a kite, a blimp, a
cloud, searchlight, bird, reflection, spurious radar indication, hoax,
fireworks display, flare, ice crystal, plane headlights, weather balloon,
hallucination, drunkenness, airplane, satellite, or any of the planets or
stars." What other explanation do you have??? It was larger than six

jets and traveled faster than anything we can produce. It was crescent-shaped
and had flashing and rotating lights. I have a record of direction, angle

of sighting, and other corroborating data. So does NICAP.

Another curious thing----on Page 3 you list UFOs sighted since 1947. Why
do you start with that date? Wasn't that when Mantell saw the UFO? Why
didn't you start with 1945 or 1940? It's strange that the two dates coincide!

You can't keep this up too much longer. I, for one, will help to spread

the word. And many others are helping, also. As for that news release,
everyone i've snowed it to has chuckled at your transparent fabrications?
Will you forever assume that all the public are idiotic children?, Remember
Lincoln's words? You would have been better off with no news release at all.

Sincerely,
Thr.
Mrs.
ec: NICAP
AFSCA