Foia Release
Unclassified Complete
23857122-0457-180273-0104
National Archives and Records Administration
Confidence
85%
Credibility
90%
View original document ↗ hosted at the official government source
Intelligence summary
The document discusses various sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and evaluates the possibility of them being weather balloons. Multiple observations indicate that the objects were likely not balloons due to timing, altitude, and flight patterns inconsistent with balloon behavior.
Tags & topics
Entities mentioned
Full document text
2,243 characters, transcribed via OCR. Errors reflect the source scan. Compare with the original ↗
Wo. 206; If description is accurate, i.e., wings on fuselace,
roar of encine, circling object, possibility of weather balloon is
remote. Also, latest time of release for Clark Field was four hours
prior to sighting. Also, note F.B.I. note on character of observer.
No. 207: Definitely not a weather balloon.
i rr
‘3
No. 208; ee sighted about four hours after last scheduled
release time. Upper air flow pattern gives no indication of possibility
of weather Siilaan drifting in from another station. Also balloon would
have to have leaked to remain at 30,000 feet.
Noe 209: Determined to have been twin-enzsined bomber.
No. aes Summary sheet missing; no altitude given; time incon-
patible with soheduled balloon release times. If direction is correct,
chasghe.) were flying into the wind. Cannot be determined conclusively.
2
Inclined to believe objects were Jet aircraft.
No. 2lls: Very Pistol.
No. 212: Objeot sighted three hours after release time of Indian-
apolis and Ft. Wayne balloons. Defective balloon could have remained
low enough to be seen and upper winds indicate that such a balloon would
have been in the Dayton area at the time sighted. All other statements
i
of observers seem to indicate that the object was a weather balloon.
No. 213: Evidently refers to the same object as in Incident No. ele,
but with entirely different description which, if accurate, makes con-
clusion of No. 212 obviously incorrect. If not same object, certainly
not a weather balloon, as definite pattern of motion, as described, not
possible under existing wind flow conditions.
Mo. 21; No information whatsoever.
No. 215: Very high winds 60-70 M.P.H. from SW at all levels,
definitely would cee prohibited any balloon from making any southerly
mothe: Also, last scheduled released time was three hours prior to
sighting at 1,000 feet. No time in sight civen so cannot compute rate
of elimb to 20,000 feet. Fairly conclusive, not a balloon of any kind.
No. 216: Object reported moving directly into 19 M.P.H. head
winds ab an estimated 350 M.P.H. Observer is a professional weather
observer and should know a weather balloon. Also, reported Sighting
was four hours after scheduled release time.
Declassification Authority: NND 57565