23857122-0457-180273-0381

Coo Oe 2 Deh? 2. AL Engineering Division Memorandum Report No. MCREXD=69l~12D 2&8 April 1919 of daylicsht sightings should have been of dark objects, It is pos sible, of course, that they may have thought the objects were bright becense they expected all aerial objects to be bright. On the basis of the evidence thus far cams idered, the best cuess € as to the nature of a visual stimlus thet wold elicit reports of unidentified flying objects is that in the daytime it would be the reflection of the sun from an aircraft, a wind=blow object, ate, and st nicht some direct licht source, such as an engine exhaust, the light on a weather balloon, a running licht on an alroraft, a meteor, eto.e, or lichté fran the ground or the moon reflected back by birds or ° © Tie We ad + @ 69 other objects in the > Discussion of Several Specific Reports Discussion of a few specific reports will serve to illustrate sane of the points brought up earlier, particularly sane of the factors that make observations of aerial phenomena inaccurate . ¢ Incidents Noe 81 and 163, In one case (Investigation No. &1) a civilian employee at Hickam Field at 0900 observed what looked like a balloo with a bright object suspended below it. It was estimated to be at about 6,000 ft. The bright object appeared to reflect the sun's rays at tines. After a few minutes he looked away and then could not find the object again. In another case (No. 163) a reserve officer at Van Muys, California, about an hour before dark sew an object that looked somewhat like a weather balloon at about 2000 M. He kept it in sight for about an hour. He later concluded thet it was at a great height. At first it 1p had the color of a fluorescent electric light but became orange as the Sun went down and then rather suddenly beoame invisible. Both of these objects oaild well have been just what they appeared to tesemble most—-balloons., The sun wes low in the sky in both cases, Declassification Authority: NND 57565