Project 10073 Record Card and Air Intelligence Information Report — Danby, California, October 1958

This Air Intelligence Information Report details an investigation into a series of UFO sightings reported near Danby, California, in late September and early October 1958. Three prospectors working near Richeleau's Tungsten Mill reported observing a bright, stationary glow in the direction of the Clipper Mountains. Initially, the witnesses believed the phenomenon might be a bank of mica or a crashed aircraft. Upon using a telescope, they described the objects as cylindrical, silver or aluminum-colored bodies with rounded noses, approximately 90 feet long and 20 feet high, appearing to hover above the horizon. The witnesses attempted to reach the location on foot but were unable to find any physical evidence of the objects. Subsequent investigation by Detachment 4 of the 1006th Air Intelligence Service Squadron (AISS) involved interviewing the witnesses and conducting a site survey. Investigators used 7x50 binoculars and observed the area from the mill, attempting to replicate the sighting conditions. They discovered two tall radio antennae used by the California Highway Patrol, located near Route 66, which protruded above the tree line. The investigators concluded that the 'objects' were an optical illusion caused by the sun reflecting off these antennae at a specific angle during the late afternoon. This reflection was only visible from the mill during a short period of the year, which explained why the witnesses, who were familiar with the area, found the phenomenon unusual. The report includes statements from the witnesses, an area overlay, a cross-section of the site, and an antennae diagram. The investigating officers, TSGT Clare A. Blair and SSGT Victor G. Sokoloff, concluded that the sighting was definitively explained by the sun's reflection on the radio equipment. Major Howard W. Holmes, the preparing officer, noted that while one witness remained skeptical, the consensus among the investigators was that the explanation was correct and that the witnesses would have likely agreed had they been provided more time for further investigation.