Declassified UFO / UAP Document

Project 10073 Record Card — Bloom, Kansas, 25 August 1956

📅 25 August 1956 📍 Bloom, Kansas 🏛 ATIC 📄 Sighting report record card and teletype summary

Ever wanted to host your own late-night paranormal radio show?

Across the Airwaves · Narrative Sim · Windows · $2.95

You're on the air. Callers bring Mothman, Fresno Nightcrawlers, UFO sightings, reptilian autopsies, and whispers about AATIP and Project Blue Book. Every reply shapes how the night goes.

UFO & UAP Cryptids Paranormal Government Secrets Classified Files High Strangeness Strange Creatures
The night is long. The lines are open →

AI-Generated Summary

TL;DR

A civilian in Bloom, Kansas, reported a single unidentified object on 25 August 1956. The military investigation concluded the report was too poor to analyze.

This document consists of a Project 10073 record card and associated teletype communications regarding an unidentified aerial phenomenon reported on 25 August 1956 in Bloom, Kansas. The sighting involved a single object observed by a civilian witness, approximately 33 years of age. The observer reported that the object was moving in an easterly direction, maintaining a straight and level flight path at an altitude of fifteen degrees above the horizon. The observation was made via ground visual contact at 0313Z. The object reportedly disappeared suddenly. The documentation includes weather data for the time and location, indicating clear conditions. An operations officer on duty at the Flight Service Center provided no additional comment on the event. The official evaluation by the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) concluded that the report was of very poor quality and contained insufficient data to perform a meaningful analysis. Consequently, the case was closed without a definitive explanation.

No data, very poor report. Insufficient data for analysis.

Official Assessment

Insufficient data for evaluation.

The report was deemed to have no data and was considered a very poor report, leading to the conclusion that there was insufficient data for analysis.

Witnesses

Key Persons