Declassified UFO / UAP Document
The A.P.R.O. Bulletin — November 1960
AI-Generated Summary
This document is the November 1960 issue of the A.P.R.O. Bulletin, detailing widespread UAP sightings in the U.S. Midwest and Brazil. It challenges official government explanations and discusses the implications of UAP reconnaissance patterns.
The November 1960 issue of The A.P.R.O. Bulletin provides a comprehensive overview of UAP sightings and related government correspondence. The primary focus is a series of sightings occurring on the morning of November 23, 1960, across the U.S. Midwest, where thousands of witnesses reported objects at high altitudes. These reports, including detailed accounts from Rex S. Curtiss and Mary A. Bradley, describe cigar-shaped and disc-shaped objects with trail-like skirts, often accompanied by light-emitting features. Official explanations, such as weather balloons, rocket stages, or radar chaff, are heavily scrutinized and largely dismissed by APRO as inadequate to explain the observed maneuvers and physical characteristics of the objects. The bulletin also features the third part of Dr. Olavo Fontes' series on 'Orthoteny in Brazil,' which analyzes a network of alignments of UAP sightings in the Brazilian Northeast. Fontes suggests these alignments indicate a systematic, long-term reconnaissance program by extraterrestrial craft, potentially targeting strategic communication and infrastructure centers. The document further details ongoing correspondence between APRO and the U.S. Navy and Air Force regarding the IGY (International Geophysical Year) photos, highlighting a perceived pattern of government censorship and the dismissal of UAP reports as 'publicity stunts' or 'hoaxes.' The editorial section reiterates APRO's commitment to objective investigation, despite the challenges posed by official secrecy and the stigma associated with UAP research. The bulletin concludes with a call for members to continue reporting sightings and to remain vigilant, emphasizing that the truth regarding UAP must be told to prepare the public for potential future encounters.
The general concensus is that an unidentified object at high altitude is responsible. This is most likely true, for the object or objects responsible for the reports have not been identified.
PDF not loading? Download the PDF directly
Official Assessment
Meteorological phenomena, weather balloons, tin foil chaff, or rocket stages
The APRO bulletin argues that official explanations for the November 23, 1960, sightings are insufficient and that the objects remain unidentified.
Key Persons
- J. G. BradyCommander, Head of the Investigation Section of the Office of Naval Intelligence
- Lawrence TackerColonel, U.S. Air Force
- Olavo T. FontesDr., UAO investigator
- Escal BennettChief of the Cincinnati Weather Bureau office