Incident #122 — Holloman Air Force Base, 5 April 1948

This document compiles reports and correspondence regarding Incident #122, a sighting of unidentified aerial phenomena by three trained balloon observers at Holloman Air Force Base on 5 April 1948. The observers, affiliated with the Geophysics Lab Section, reported seeing one or two objects at very high altitudes. The objects were described as rounded, indistinct, and possessing a golden or grey-white hue, with one witness noting a resemblance to a major's insignia. The objects exhibited erratic flight patterns, including vertical loops, rapid descents, and sudden disappearances, moving at speeds described as faster than any known aircraft. The witnesses, all trained in balloon observation, explicitly stated the objects were not balloons and appeared to be unmanned, given the violent maneuvers performed. The Air Materiel Command, under Project SIGN, investigated the incident, interviewing the witnesses and reviewing their statements. While the official conclusion for Incident #122 remained that there was no logical explanation and no astronomical origin, the investigation highlighted discrepancies in the witnesses' accounts, particularly regarding the number of objects and their specific flight paths. The document also includes broader correspondence regarding Project SIGN and Project Grudge, detailing the efforts of Lt. Colonel James C. Beam and Alfred C. Loedding to interview witnesses and gather data on radar sightings. The report emphasizes the difficulty in reconciling these sightings with routine balloon launches, noting that while some incidents could be explained as balloons, others remained unexplained. The investigators suggested that future sightings should be reported immediately and that standardized procedures for data collection, such as angular size estimation, should be implemented to improve the quality of future reports. The document serves as a record of the military's early attempts to systematically collect and analyze UAP data, reflecting both the seriousness with which these reports were treated and the challenges faced in obtaining consistent, reliable information from observers.