PROJECT BLUE BOOK

PROJECT 10073 RECORD
1. DATE · TIME GROUP 1. DATE · TIME GROUP 2. LOCATION LOCATION
22 August 65 22/2345Z Lancaster, Califomia Lancaster, California
3. SOURCE CONCLUSION 10. CONCLUSION
Civilian A/C
4. NUMBER OF OBJECTS
Evaluation as a/c and chase or escort plane most likely cause.
Two Data presented consistant with this analyis.
5. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 11. BRIEF SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
3 Minut es, 1 Minute Two objects. Large object round, small like a fly wing. Large
. TYPE OF OBSERVATION object was white changing to a flashing white, small was
brownish grey in color. Small object flying alongside larger
Ground-Visual object when first observed. Made crossover from left to right
7. COURSE si de. Very ranid crossover. No details or features noted on
NE ei ther object. Crossover was 2 seconds. Both moving at same
. PHOTOS speed. Small object sapjeared rapidly and larger ob ject
continued flashing. Elevation 45 degrees azimuth 175 degrees
Yes Flight to di sappearance at deg azimuth for the small objec
XOI No and 45 deg azimuth for the larger object was at 45 deg elevation.
9. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE Flight was straight and even with the exception of the manuven.
Large object visible for 3 minutes, small for one. Objects
i Yes disappeared in the desert haze. Flight was to the NE.
XNo
FORM
FTD SEP 63 0-329 (TDE) Provlous edtttone of thls (orm mey be ueed.

flashing until it passed from view. object wa browish grey
in color.
(4)
side
of the larger object when first sighted. It then made an extremely rapid
crossover to the right side of : the larger object, as viewed the ob-
server.
(6) (5) Neither oject had any
(7) exhaust S her object.
(8) There was no sound sighting.
(9)
(a) The very rapid crossover (estimated to be about t:o
right side of the larger object by the smaller
object. Both appeared to be traveling at the same speed and there . was no
apparent lag by the smaller object due to the crossover.

(3)
The disappeared was
approximately 45 degrees.
straight with the the
The flight scribed in a(9)(a).
maneuver of the smaller objec
The objects disappeared the northeast due to time and
(5) flashing remained visible
desert haze. The larger
for a longer time.
- object was visible visible for three minutes. I for three minutes. The smaller The smaller
object object was visible for about o one minute. minute.
c. MANNER OF OBSERVATION: MANNER OF OBSERVATION:
(1) Ground-visual. Cround-visual.
(2) (2) 1 None.
(3) /A. (3) N/A.
à. TEE AND DATE OF SIGHTING: TEME AND DATE OF SIGHTING:
1)2345 zulu time 22 Aug 65. (1)2345 zulu time 22_Aug_65.
2) I Day.
e. LOCATION OF OBSERVER:
(1) Lancaster, Calif.
f. IDENTIFYING INFORMA ON OBSERVER:
(1)
Age 41
Lancaster, Calif. General Electric
Service engineer
2

over 3,000 /
hours. I would ra
g. WEATHER CONDITIONS AT TIME IGS:
(1) Clear
(2) Wind Direction Wind Velocity
in Degrees in Knots
Surface 250 16
6,000 255.1 9.9
10,000 261.3 13.5
16,000 246.9 16.3
20,000 254.8 27.6
30,000 261.7 30.2
50,000 249.3 30.8
80,000 92.5 13.7
(3) Clear.
(4) 1 15 miles.
(5) ) None.
(5) None.
Temp. in
(7) Altitude Degrees Centigrade Degrees Centigrade
6,000 18.8
10,000 11.2
16,000 -0.4
20,000 -9.3
30,000 -33.8
50,000 -64.7
80,000 -51.5
h. ANY OTHER UNUSUAL ACTIVITY OR OR CONDITION: NDITION:
(1) None. (1) None.
i. INTERCEPTION OR IDENTIFICATION ACTION TAKEN:
(1) None.
j. Unable to determine any.
k. COMMENTS:
3

that the sighting may have been a spacecraft, satellite, or some sort of
space debris. Their computer check produced negative results, although
they cautioned that this didn't automatically rule out space theory.
The input data outside the tolerance limits of the
computer.
I feel that the two above explanations are the most plausible. The
observer agrees that either of these may well explain what he saw if
there were an aberration of some sort involved. Mr. did not feel
so strongly about the unusual features of the sighting that so strongly about the unusual features of the sighting that he would rule he would rule
out the above explanations. out the above explanations.
1. EXISTENCE OF PHYSICAL E 1. E EXISTENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: EVIDENCE:
(1) None.
FOR FOR THE THE COMMANDER
1
JOHN D. BALENT, Capt, USAF
Technical Evaluation Officer
Deputy for Foreign Technology
I
4
.