PROJECT 10073 RECORD CARD 2. LOCATION ( 12. CONCLUSIONS LaCl"OOGC, Wiscon:Jin U Wos Balloon 0 Probably Balloon 3. - OAiETJME-CROUP -----.---~ .. -.-TYPe -or oo.siRVATl.ON------------o Possibly Oolloon 12'2;: CGT IXGround-Vi~ual 0 GroundRouor 0 Wos Aircroh nco - II' ~...LI-. . - -0 PJobo!Jiy Ai rcroh / lJfl~5 --' 0 Pouibly Aircraft ).PHarris - 1. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 0 Was Astrononticol 0 Probably Astronomical 0 Po albly Ao;tronomlcol ,:~ Insufficient Data for Evaluation v~,.J Unknown 10. BRitF SUMMARY OF SIGHTIHG colored. Stro.iB}lt maneuvers Yform3tion ATIC f'OP.M 3a9 (R~V 26 SP 52) NORTH\VESTERN UNIVERSITY BVAN~ION, IUJNOIS 60101 Dl.iPAllTMIJNT OP ASTRONOMY FTD ('fDETR) Rc&earch and Aerial Phenomena Divi3ion Wright Patterson Air Force Base TDPT (UFO) UFO Inves t i g ation To: Lt. Col. Hector Quint~nilla, Jr. Reference: I. Your letter 22 Ma y 1968 , s ubject, UFO :, ; .r: . I have the follo\..ring comment s on all tl11 listed, in the order they were listed. . y o u have l. 7 January 1952, Palmer, Alaska. I have rated this case E3 C7, meaning that as far n s st,anee- ness \'las concerned, the stimulus giving rise to this rep t..-t 1: ()uld have been something quite ordinary or it could h ave f allf'n : " " the category of "cigar-shaped Ufos" reporte d from mc:my count..-i. cr anr1 which have no ready explanation. In this instance , thcr:c is not sufficient infonnation to go on. The r eport '"e h av e s t ni.:es, "Alaska Air Command informed and will take further invt~U.(~a: 1 '!O:' action," and, "additiona l data \o~ill be fon-1anlcd when avai.Jai)~-.;". To the best of my kno,,ledge the further d ata were ncveJ:-tcr~n::rr; ttcd. This plus the fact that it was r eporte d by one woma n out c)f l , ( 5 (not 45 a s the original report stated) aml the fac t tlwl: i t '.' .tj observed at the time of the setting sun, leads me to thi,,;( l\ the sighting might have had a meteorlogical origin. Thtt . . "po~,~ibly meteorological, but data insufficient for firm cvalua t l<,,." : ., IY recommendation for this classification. 14 April 1952, LaCrosse..!._\-lis )}s_in -- I originally asked to r eview this cas e in the hope s t::t:.t un- known to me aome additional folloHup had bee n made. I fou1ir: 1 it:1.\.. despite the fact that a captain of commercia l airliner And o L; ::cc:; Uector Quintanilla had witnessed this, no followup \-1h.:1tever Has made. It 1:4 : lt,; br>tt of thing in this case, and in a nrea t many others , that I ;(! t.:o the facetious, but somewhat deadl y remark by someone thnl ,,u _;C"ct Blue Book might be called, not the "Society for the Invr s t ' .:. i. i un of Unexplained", (Ivan Sa n crson's organixation) but rathc:, ::IJcicty for the Explanation of the Uninvestigated". Since 194'7, i~t.!:.se of lack of funds and adequate personnel, a formi.dnbl e t1Uin1, ~ , \ ' C cases were not adequately follO\o~ed up. I ha d often pojnl.f ,):,\.., both to officials in Dayton and i.n \-lashington, th.:1 t a cL:1y n , .eckon- ing might some day come '"'hen the Air Force might be asked tu ~hov; cause why proper investig.:1tions were not rnnde. In this cn(', ~or instance, no attempt apparently was made even to find oul ' . "Lb e others" were who had made. this sighting . Hot., many? \Vr(' , passengers? Were they members of the cre\o/? No nttemp~ ,' :; made to find out the duration of the sigh t i n g . In v ic\J , ti1 i.s, it is patently impossible to form any sort of a va lid j. . : .. ;: :u; to what the stimulus that g ave rise to this report mighi. ,, .. u"\.1 . To list it as "insufficient information" is incorrect, Li.d'. l. :,;,u~1ld really be. listed as "insufficient information b e c a use o f l a d ( uf. followup". A store of informatio n may have been availavlc, it. ~ this tore was never tapped. Inc idc.ntally, how is the case &n:e::: r ;1 .. y carried, unidentified, or insufficient infol-mation? The lati:\r would certainly be more appropriate. 3. 4 June 1952, Stuttgart, Gennany. 1 have rated this a E3 C6 meaning puzzling but posfJ:i.bly t:.,p1..'1n- able case of credibility 6, since there were t\-70 witne~se~;; tchr,)cally trained. One witness was a Licutenallt Colonel who \vas shortl1 L~1cre- after assigned to the Directorate of Intelligence, lleadquartcrs, United States Air Force. It seems unlikely tha t they \lOuld h:.wc been mislead into a misidentification of an F84, and reported instead a very bright light that crosse d in front of their aircraft, 1!\dc fairly tight turns , and then have turned their own aircre1ft t~t follO\v it. Of course, it is entirely possible tha t it \o)Of: .. ~rcoss misidentification on the part of these two experienced p i i C'i' !; t:1nd therefore the evaluation of possible aircraft is jus ti f i ct;. it is unjustified, however, in the statistics for the year t o c .. :. l it an unquestioned aircraft. To be fair, one might also have : ignated it "possibly unidentified" and at the end o f the yea r h~lvc l:i.::;te<l it as "unidentified". I have long inveighed agninst the unncccpt- able (and this is to any good stat is tic ian) statistics eli' I oycd b y Blue Book over the years in transforming"possibles" and "p"A:"ou.ablcs into firm actualities DEPARTMENT OF THiE A~R -lNCOMING . CLEAR MESSAGE AFHQ Fllltlll 0-309 D En'RACT Frol-1 STATUS REPORT 1._ .... 7 _ l.mGTH OF TII!E OBSERVI:D& HEADDii: ~ ; ACTI elL~ OR COl!J.IElITS: .~o DESCRIPTIOn OF DICI: DmT: