PROJECT BLUE BOOK

.
PROJECT J0073 RECORD CARD
L. OATE 2. LOCATION 12.
CONCLUSIONS
Dee 63 NeMinnville, Oregon Was Balloon
3. DATE-TIME GROUP 000 Probobly Balloon
4. TYPE OF OBSERVATION Possibly Bolloon
Local Ground-Visual Ground-Radar 0 Was Aircraht
GMT1/15002 CI Probably Aircraft
Air-Visua Air-Intercept Radar Possibly Aircraft
5. PHOTOS 6. SOURCE
Ye: 00 Wes Astronomical
CXNo civilian Probobly Astronomical
vliian 0 Possibly Astronomical Possibly Astronomical
7.LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 7. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 9NUMBER OF OBJECES 9. NUMBER OF OBJECTS | 9. 19. COURSE Other.UNIDENTIEFIED Other.UNTDENTIEIED
000 000 Insufficient Data for Evaluation Insufficient Data for Evaluation
ONE MIN ONE E AST Unknown
10. BRIEF SUMMARY H1O. BRIEF SUMMARY OF SIGHTING OF SIGHTING 11. COMMENTS 11. COMMENTS
See Case Pile. UNIDENTIFIED.
/
ATIC FORM 329 (REV 25 SEP 52)
7

a popsible a plane with landing lights. Th loeal airport
nss no regul "ly ve ar moderate
ameunt of vitv in orivate olanes and ir ular visitors,
L.be A.. Aen
i celled L! Clce to 98K aDOUt helicopter .un't ask
rirectly sircraft of sny other kini, such nform-
1
ation was -sred. As for position, a is about
thomilee .:t or my house. The ouie hardly
made a rigi aled turn the landing light d hardly be
visible at 4 the bright flash SAN be
exvlained maner.
I think i's ree that this is t the most t". source among
obvious oe.. ,t but I could not make it ri
for a ba.lo a.i never heard airport, and
the wind is s nost never Iron the east. or the problem
of reflectiar too, as described in my memo. belloons ever
Selr-lighteal I aidn't know it, but in any the motion
rules out a lriai source. -- Just for my uriosity. I
hope you'itit t me know how you finally fil - thing!
Cordially

to say t that we are uable to provide you with an evaluation.
Dr. Hynek considered s. the possibility of a light airorafts
however, however, the ciroumstances would the circumstances Would not support support this evaluation.
Balloons do carry lights a do carry lights a usually battery operated
however, the motion of however, the motion of tl object 4a3 not consistent with
the evaluation of a balloon. the evaluation of a balloon. Also, the absence of anastr- Also, the absence of anastr-
nomteal object in that nomteal object 1 that particul particu rules out thls as a
possible evaluation.
Sincerely, Ly
MASTON MAOTOM P: M. JACKS
Major, USAP
Chief, Plotorial Branch
Publio Information Division
orrice of Information
Linfleld College
MoMinnville e, Oregon

a suggested reply:
Dear Dean
Your recent letter dated 12 Nov 64 to Doctor J Allen
Hynek has been forwarded to the Air Force as part of the case
file on your of 11 Dec 63
Since you expressed desire to know of the final
evaluation and/or dispostion the sighting we regret to
say that we are unable provide orc you with you with an evaluation. an evaluation.
Doctor Hynek considered the possibility of light aircraft,
however, the circumstances would not support however, the circumstances would not support this evaluation. is evaluation.
Balloons do carry lights and are usually battery operated, Balloons do carry lights and are usually batter operated,
however, the motion of the object was not consistant with
the evaluation of a balloon. Also, theabsence of an astro- the evaluation of a belloon. Also, theabsence of an astro-
nomical object in that particular area rules out this as a
possibly evaluation.
Your case has been filed as one of the few cases for
which the Air Force cannot find a logical exolanation. The
attached statistics for l963 indicate the small residue of
those sightings which are indeed puzzling to us as wellaas
men of seience, such as yourself. The attached brochure .
FOR THE ANDER
Me JONCKHEERE
Colonel, USAF
Deputy for Technology
and Subsystems
2
YOU- THE NUCLEUS OF SECURITY!

HEADQUARTERS
AREA CODE 303 AIR DEFENSE COMMAND
TEL: 635-8911 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
EXT: 3524 ENT AIR FORCE BASE, COLORADO, BO912
REPLY TO
ATTN OF: ADOIN
SUBJECT: SHIELD OF FREEDOM
UFO 23 Jan 64
TO: Foreign Technology Division
Wright-Patterson AFE Ohio
The attached letter, received through the Air Force Academy,
is forwarded for your information.
FOR_TH
CMals Caionet
ERNEST C. PARSONSON 1 Atch
Lt Colonel, USAF Ltr fr Linfield College
Deputy Director of Intelligence dtd 6 Jan 64

Dear sirs:
present repol appropriate for the
if ndicated.
As a college p ssor of math
a skeptic regarding mysterious and a stronomy I have been
posing them to be optical i posing them optical J objects ir the the sky, sup-
not recognized by the observers. not recognized by the observers. illusions or familiar items
a month a month ago have left me without The attached notes of The attached notes of
I saw. I saw. Perhaps they will interest any good theory of what any good theory y of what
Very truly yours,
Dean of Faculty
i

ng the horizon.
The time of sunrise this day, locally, was about 7:40. The
estimated angle of the sun below the horizon at 7:00 would be
7 to 8 degrees. For an object to reflect sunlight it would have
to be about 30-40 miles above the earth. This, as well as the
apparent speed, would rule out aircraft; so would the hovering
efract during the first period of time. No earth satellite could
diaplay the same combination of spparent motionlessness followed
by rapid lateral movement.
If an object were 3o-ko miles aloft and visible just over
the horizon from here, it would have to be at least a hundred
miles away. At that distance the lateral speed of 5 degrees in
distance, high Greater
nd speed combinations vould also be consistent
with the obs. but I don't know of any object that would
offer a reason explanation.
it gould have been much nearer and slower. One might think of
a helicopter, but the very bright star-like quality of the
stationary period is improbable.
Evergreen Helicopter Service reports no copters were out at
that time from the MoMinnville airport.
Linfield College

objects come more frequently from untralnad and less eritical people than
the "good" reports. That is, highly trained people car an generally solve the
Be that all as it may, I have been unable to come up vith any solution to
your sightings of Deceuber 1l, l953, at 7:00 A. M., and I wonder whether, after
all this passage of e, you ray have had some afterthoughts or clues to
the nature inal stimatlus.
.
as Jupiter all that would be requ I be to have a light less than
one hundred candle power.
on this matter even though the incident
occurred nearly a yea eg0. unidentified
sighting, but if you feel that there is no compelling reason to believe thac
it could not have been an aireraft landing light or a lighted balloon, we
night be able to list it as possibly belonging to that category and take it
out of the vexing unidentified coluim, Ia the McMinnville Airport to the
north of you? Better yet, is it the northeast of you? In that case, the
plane night have been in its landing pattern, coning towards you dirootly for
a bit and then turning toward the landing strip.

?
.
In any event, I do hope to hear frou you at your convonte
all of the reports we got at Wright Field were as factua!
as yours was.
Sincerely yours,
J. Allen Bynek
JAH:krf