PROJECT 10073 RECORD 1 .. DTE TIME JJtO!J'/ Jul Y 67 04/02lOZ l. sour.cE 1. HUMSER OF OIJECTS 5. LENGTH OF OIS'ERVATION 6. TYPE OF OISERVATI()flf Gro~n:J.-Visue.l 9. PHYSICAL EYIOINC! 2. L.OCA TION :~nsas Cit~. Y~nsas 10. CONClUSION Surface wind due south at 5 knots . 11. B~leF SUMMARY AND A,_.ALYSIS The obserrer sighted a metalic l ooking object that tr~veled d~e s outh, had a slight "t/Obble in flight, Tisp y snake cc,.tld b~ se~n abo7e tee object, and seeoed t o exploje sorue~here botwee:l th.e obser,rers heme and Richards- Gabou:..,. c ould b e m:~de -i t flew a straight cour~\:! c roJslng the Line several blocks south of our vantage point. The Air Force did not acknowledge any other r~ports, to our group- nor was there any publicity Biven (to our knowledge) through any news media. We received that same night two hours after our report to the Air Force -what we now know is the standard Air Force cozwnent "There were no planes in the area at that time and there were no blips on radar". ~ly conuaent -'Either they were lying or they had better overhaul their radar.' The object was within three miles of this major air base (Richards Gebauer) when it exploded and it went b etween our house and the Air Base ! I pressed the Air Force as much as I could into a search for the parts because -here wa chance to obtain positive evidence. A similar plea to Mr. group for action apparently fell on deaf ears. Summary of Action after Sighting In~ediately after sighting and explosion of the U.F.O. -the writer phoned the WDAF-TV. No other reports had been made but the operator interrupted our conversation saying tha t the s~itch board was lighting up like a Christ~s Tree, then h e hung up immediately. No furthe r reports or T.V. mention. I called Johnson County (Kansas) sherriff -he asked a few questions and got my name and address. Then I called Richard Gebauer Air Force Base -after several minutes I got a party to talk to -then five more minutes delay while he looked for the report Form -which must have been five pages long, that ended the conversation. My next action was to search the area (it was dark by now) by car .- and interviewing people in the area -attendants at Drive-ln, Deputy Sheriff at a fireworks stand, etc. -none had seen or heard I figured that if the craft was our s or if it was alien -the Air Force in either case would be all over the area like a tent -I criss-crossed all the area by car -no military personnel -and few civilians. I returned ho~e -one-and-a-half hour Inter to find tltat the sheriff had interviewed three of the observer s -but would not a dmit a~y other reports .. though ~e learned later this sarre man hod told a neighbor that they h od over 25 r eports !! We hed just gone to be d when the Air Force calle d -saying ''There were no plnnes in the area n t the time and thnt there were no bli ps on radar". The phone clicke:d . A week had passed when a secretary from the Air Base called saying a Captain So-and-so wants to talk to me-but he won't be in for several days. He did call -but he seemed more interested in how to join the Astronomy Club than our sighting Several weeks passed -and through friends acti~e in the Navy League suggested that I call the skipper of the base -, which I did -he suggested to call the Cor.~nder of Richards Gebauer -which I did - he was out, his assistant sent Col. Mercier to visit us -he ins~ected the binoculars, telescope , the angles -and bearings that we pointed out. He apologized for a co ent in the Air Force report -that the U.F.O. probably was a co~et. I drew pictures, etc. and signed them. He left. I called hio two ~eeks later and asked him if he had heard anything -He said "Nc -and you won't either." Col. Mercier in roy opinion is a fine officer and a very likeable person but also h nd orders to keep quiet. Since I had worked for the Bureau of Standards while an officer in the Navy I figured tha t I could at least get some sort of a response from Dr. Ed Condon who was head of the Bureau and who had speci- fically requested one of ~y reports. So I called him long distance at my expense obtaining hL~ after several days of futile attempts. I didn't expect him to re~ewber me, the report or for that matter other personnel connected with the project -the project he did remember. He said that this vas the toughest job he ever got into mainly for the lack of evidence -I said "That's the reason I'm calling !!! I know where the evidence is and with five men we can find it in a few hours !" He said that. he is supposed to get copies of all reports de by the Air Force, and as soon as he saw it would let me know -No answer. I followe d with a letter to remind him of our conversation -I only asked "Did you get a copy of my report? " -Again no answer, none to this day. Since this experience with t h e authorities nty contacts have bee n with numerocs other individ~als ~ho have had similar experiences both in sightings and their contacts with the Air Force and other authorities. Since than I have had a very delightful and informative forty-five minute talk vith Dr. Allt::n Hynek of Northwestern, . ..rho is the only , one thus far who has ack:1o . .-ledged any r eport or conversation . P.e will receive the first c opy of this last report. November 18, 1968 The follo.~'ing r e port of a U. F .0. sighttng on July 3, 196~ in the Knnsas City .Suburb tO\ffi o f Lca.:ood, I:..nnsa~ i s made by the author 1) Graduate ~techanlcal Engineer with major in Engineering -Case Institute o( Technology (now Case Western Reserve U11ivc r sity) Aeronaut :t cttl 2) Licensed private pilot since 1941 700 flying hours, primary glider to cross country and acrobatics type planes. 3) Three and a half yea r s instructor at University o f Houston teaching army and navy pilots , Theory o f Flight, Air Navigation, Aircraft Engines, Heteoro!_9_gy. 4) Aviation Ordnance Officer, U.S. Navy, assigne d to the design and testing of a classified bomb director during World War II. This included ny hours of flight testing-as we]l as training pilots etc. on the proper use and maintenance of this equipment. This included duty at U.S. BUreau of Standards , Tactical test s ection U.S. Naval Air Station at Patuxient Aircraft Carriers Boxer and Tara\va as well as numerous air stations and depots. 5) Licensed Proffesional Engineer in the State o f Kansas. 6) Mamber various Engineering a nd Technica l societies. 7) Member of the Astr onomy Club of Kansas City. Observed many ~eteorological phe nomenCJ at sea, in the air, etc. such as St. Elno's fire on sail boats, planes , all sorts of mirages, as ~ell as hundreds of halos, s un dogs , etc . many irr.age distortions due to temperature inversions, l and, sea and air. Corono discharges on high voltage powe r lines, a tornado from an airplane, inverted thund~rheads, hurricanes, ~ater spouts, sonic pressure waves, northern lights, comets, metoors, satelites, asteroid showers, are so~e of the sightings and identified by the observer . 9) ile on sea duty with U.S. Navy othe r duties such as liason officer betwe~n air group and aircraft carrier, photographic officer, monitored r adio and radar in ere, plane accident investigatio ns , etc. 10) Fourteen years as a field ~elding engineer f o r Lincoln Electric Co. 11) Instruc ted at (3) universities -U of Houston, Univ. of California an un~v~rs~ty 0 .l~ssourl a t .... ansas ty. 12) Develope d and patented several products i n plastics, e lectronic s , etc. Now preside.nt of Nicholl Bros., rnc. of Kansas City , ~issouri = rn~nuf~cturers of flas hlights, lante rns, etc. CP Ol)!>Gt'!.yo,~1 rf3 c,v t? Nrr,~au< P~ r!.a w rrv Pro:;>osed reply to letter fro::l Congressman r,.1inn 1. Reference the UFO sighti~6 of 3 July 1967 from Kansas City, Kansas. After an initial investigation by the Project Blue Book Staff, it has been determined that the object seen by . ~as almost certainly a probably a GarLnent Bag Hot Air Ealloon. (See attached description.) 2. Surface ~eather observations were requested from the United States Air Force Environmental Technical Applications Center (ETAC), WashingtonJ D. c. and are as follows: Kansas City 3/8 alto-c ulous coverage Surface wind from 36o at 5 knots Visibility -15 miles Temperature -19C Dew Point -12C Y~nsas City Surface wind from 4o0 at 6 knots Visibility -15 miles Temperature -19oc Dew Point - 11oc 3 Upper air data to 5000 ft vas also requested. Tne closest upper air stations and closest times available ~ere from: Columbia, lwlissouri Alt in meters Tope a, Kansas Alt in meters 4. It is felt that the evaluation of balloon (Hot Air) is conbistent vith the description and flight characteristics of the object. UFO Description and Flight Characteristics Wobble in flight (slight roll and pitch Wispy lines of vapor Bright red-orange lights Reflective surface 50 tt in diameter Explosion and debris Lack of debris on the ground Duration of about 5 minutes Traveled due south No radar contact. Characteristic of balloon flight. Probably smoke from burniD6 heat source for balloon. Heat sources. Reflections from plastic bag. Impossible to estimate unless distance is knovn. 1. Possibly caused by a small firecracke~ attached tothe base of the balloon. 2. Possible misinterpretation of natural decay of balloon There would ba little left of the balloon. It would not be as far away as observer estimated. Would tend to go unnoticed, since the observer Yould be looking for metallic debris. Suitable duration for Rot Air Balloo Surface wind southerly at about Balloon vould be an extremely poor reflector for radar. 5 On the basis of the above similarities this sighting is to be carried under the balloon category in Project Blue Book files CAilLE ADDRESS "OaSERVATORY" Lt. Colonel Hector Quintanilla, J=., USAF Ci1ief, Aerial Phenomena Office D~?artment of t!1a Air Force H ldqu~rtols Forciqn 'l'cchno.Logy Division (l\I'SC) ~lright-P~ttcrson 1\ir I'orcc Dus~, Ohio ~1 ~-13 J Dear Hector: Thunk you for your letter of 1 July and its enclosure. I have recently returned fro~ a f airly extensive trip to Europe, with the main objective of naming craters of the far side of the moon, a meeting of a committee of which I am I found the cases you sen~ extremely interesting. I am particularly pleased with you~ resume of the Cochrane, Wisconsin sighting and your credit line to me. My only minor comment is that I would have replaced the word "possibly" by "probably ., I see no reason to get excited over the Kansas City sighting. Dut apparently }lcDonald can work up a sweat about anything. I think the analysis of a small balloon, probably a garment bag hot air balloon, is probable. The suggestion of a firecracker is also reasonable, in view of the d~tc. I f0cl that not enough attcntio~1 !:as been p.:1id to the date, the C\"~ninq be tore the Fuurth of J\.lly. 'l,h0 dc:-;cri.ption :ound~;, to l><-llloon. I nm not t~\nLl.li,~.t, \vi.Lh . d . L < h,, ,,)tl\1: ,,t. Hhhl,!,L\ r L~:~.: v:orks. However, I h.:tv 0 s~...;cn so::~0 f o rm:.; o f Cl;lcc._!.;, o l Len colored, which are sent up with ~ rocket an~ come down with d parachute. I give little weig~t to the statement that re- flections of trees could be seen on the flat bottoHl surface. :iow~ver, the lines of Vilpor \Jou le: b e qui t.e in kcepinCJ VIi th !:;o rne sort o flare. 'here i s .10 'd a y of kno\tin g hov/ f a r av;ay .:. t. v1as. Th~y don't kno\l i t:s s i ~2. a owever, the description o f "u shallow inverted bo\11" docs suggest. to me the p arachute I tl1ink tl1at tl1c failure o f the Air Force to record any es in tl1u cu_- ,..:n JdJ. ,j 1\t. 1Jl.l..Jd\t,..:c:: a dut~.LiChL...: G( \v:1e1.t was observed. The dcscri!;>t.ion of ''light weigh t particles fluttering down, is entirely consistent with the idea that these Lt. Colonel Hector Quint~r.illa -2- August 5, 1969 were the kind of phosphorescent soarks so characteristic of ~reworks. The explosion as described is more consistent with my explanation as fireworks rather than a plastic balloon and as part of the explosion, some of the falling debris could have produced the observation of the two heavy parts. The foregoing is my analy!.iis for wh;tt it :i.:' wrn:Lll. J. will be interested in getting your rcactio11. \iith reference to the Jefferson City sigl1ting, I am certainly not impressed either with the principal olJ~crvcr or \"i th Ilyncl<' s interview with him. Estimates of size and distuncc mean ~bsolutcly not.hing. 'l'hc shape is something like a plastic balloon. One cannot help but wonder about tl1e man's eye condition. However, he was observing through the \-lindshield und such observations can al\vays be misleading. Could it, for example, have been a re- flection of the moon? A person seeing such a reflection, when driving, will observe it to maneuver. He makes the statement that "at one time it was directly overhead." At no time does he indicate t~at he stopped the car, got out and observed. He claims that he observed with both binoculars and a telescope. Most certainly the question s hould have been asked whether he tried to observe with these instruments through hiswindshield or through the side windows. Were tl1e side windO\-IS up or down? ~vas the top down? Otherv1ise how does he knott~ it \-las directly overhead? These are vital questions that should.have been asked. I should like to know what his eye correction is. He advances a fantastic theory to explain the sightin~. F'l'('i\\ th~ ctcr;ct iption I \1/oulcl ju(1'1C' l:hut h o 11,,""1 1P(,d r~f''"" of tla~