...........from prev post.
e. Incident No. 163 bears a fair description of the appearance of a large plastic balloon in sunset light. The object’s dissapearance could be
accounted for either by its movement into the earth’s sunset shadow or by natural defocusing of the observer’s eyes. This incident could possably
have been balloon release No. 75 or N0. 76 or 20 and 21 July [illegible] from Alamogordo. Balloon No 75 was recovered at Holliater, California, which
is in Montoroy Bay area, on 22 July 194[illegible] and could have easily had a trajectory which would have been within sight of the Los Angeles area.
Balloon No. 76 was never recovered. It is possible that it had a trajectory similar to No. 75.
f. All other reported incidents from 1 to 172 do not seem to have reasonable comparison with balloons launched by these Laboratories.
3. The balloons used by these Laboratories are now somewhat standardized. They are 20 feet long, plastic, white in color, and hemisphere-on-cone in
shape. Nearly all launchings are made as the Holloman AFB at Alamogordo, New Mexico. Two photograph prints are inclosed showing the appearance and
size of these balloons. The larger photograph shows the typical flight appearance at any altude where it would be visible. Tt is hoped that this
information may be or some use to you in identifying future reports of incidents.
[page footed 8-34560] numbered 2.
----------------------------------------------------
(page 12 text)
Ltr, ERH, to CG, AMC, Subj: Analysis of Proj, “Grudge” Reported Incidents.
4. It is believed that [illegible] of the [illegible] in the questionairs “Checklist-Unidentified Flying Objects” pre[illegible]
insignifi[illegible] an unreliable data from an observer. [illegible]: 9. Distance of object from observer: 11, Altitude: 12, Speed, and 16.
[illegible]. For any unfamiliar object beyond the focal range of the human eyes (about 60 ft.), those four factors are naturally interdependent and
therefore indeterminate unless at least one of them (and [illegible] observed angles) are known. Directly asking the observer about these
indeteminants not only gets unreliable data but induces wild answers because the observer is led into making a statement about quantities for which he
has no basis in fact. He will [illegible] knowledge of [illegible] one of these factors and [illegible] give incorrect information on all. That
people (many of whom could [illegible]) [illegible] give [illegible] to two significant [illegible] on those questions, which really cannot be
answered at all, is proof of the unreliability of their information.
5. It is suggested that those four items on the questionnaire be replaced by questions which will yield answers possible of being independent facts in
terms of the observer’s best estimates of angles and time. From such data given by observers of the same object at two different places, a reliable
calculated estimate could be made of the object’s size, altitude, speed and path. These data should include:
a. An estimate of the angular size of the object. A quick bur reasonable estimate can be made by the angle subtended by the index finger held at arms
length. The finger (7/8” wide) of an average man held at 26” to 30” (arms length) will subtend an angle of approximately two degrees. In this
way angular size from about 1/2° to about 5° can be estimated.
b. The range of the objects flight in terms of the angle subtended by the observed [illegible]. If the object moves in reasonably straight course it
is important to observe the position at the beginning and the end of its course. After the flight has been completed a person can extend his arms
toward the two points and also at 90° or 180° and by comparison estimate the angular extent of the flight. It is also important that information
which will determine those directions relative to a compass point be given. If the angular course is associated with objects on the horizon, with
roads, with the sun (if the time of day is also noted) or by the north star, the orientation can be rechecked at any later time.
c. The time required for the object to traverse the observed course. This is probably the most difficult estimate to make. Timing with a watch is
the most satisfactory, but an observer is seldom prepared to do so. Seconds can be counted with good accuracy by saying,
----------------------------------------------------
(page 13 text)
“one flying saucers, two flying saucers, three flying saucers” ---etc. At a normal speaking speed. On the other hand it is not easy to count
seconds and at the same time make all the other desirable observations. It must be remembered that when a person is excited his estimates of time are
apt to be rather inaccurate.
d. Estimation of the elevation angle of the object. Almost all persons will overestimate elevation angles. This tendency can be reduced by the
observer extending one arm vertically and the other horizontally to observe a 90° angle and a more accurate estimate obtained.
6. It is realized that it might not be possible for an observer to perform the operations suggested in the preceding paragraph, during the period the
object is sighted. If he would immediately reconsider what he saw and then estimate such measurements, he should be able to give quantitative answers
accurate to at least 25%. In interrogating observers, they should also be asked to reconstruct their observations and then estimate these same
factors. It is suggested that instructions for making such quick and estimated observations be given to weather observers, control tower operators,
civil police, forest and fire rangers, and other such people who might have good chance of seeing unidentified flying objects. If any information for
reliable observation should be included.
7. This orqanization will be pleased to be of any further assistance required in connection with the matter.
FOR THE COMMANDING OFFICER:
3 Incls
1. List of balloons launched (in trip)
2. 8”x10” photo print of plastic balloon
3. 4”x5” photo print of plastic balloon
/s/ .C. Trakowaki, Jr.
A.c. TRAKOWSKI, JR.
Captain, USAF
Director, Base Directorate for Geophysical Research
----------------------------------------------------
(page 14 text)
Dr HYNEK’S EVALUATIONS EXTRACTED FROM PROJECT GRUDGE REPORT.
INCIDENT INDEX
1. Astronomical
a. High Probability:
#26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 48, 49, 59, 60, 66, 69, 70, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 116, 119, 132, 136, 140, 147, 148, 159, 174, 184,
185, 187, 197, 203, 204, 208, 216, 219, 238.
b. Fair or Low probability:
#19, 20, 23, 24, 28, 35, 36, 46, 50, 63, 67, 80, 82, 93, 100, 112, 120, 121, 129, 130, 144, 153, 160, 166, 167, 175, 192, 199, 202, 202, 220, 230,
240.
2. Non-astronomical but suggestive of other explanations
a. Balloons or ordinary aircraft:
#3, 11, 22, 41, 42, 53, 54, 73, 81, 83, 91, 92, 113, 114, 115, 126, 131, 138, 141, 145, 155, 156, 187, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 169, 171, 173, 178,
180, 182, 188, 190, 194, 195, 196, 198, 200, 201, 209, 210, 217, 222, 235, 237, 239.
b. Rockets, flares or falling bodies:
#4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 25, 56, 65, 78, 106, 107, 108, 109, 133, 170, 211, 218.
c. Miscellaneous (reflections, auroral streamers, birds, etc):
#39, 89, 123, 124, 128, 146, 164, 181, 189, 214, 221, 231, 234.
3. Non-astronomical, with no explanation evident
a. Lack of evidence precludes explanations:
#38, 44, 45, 47, 56, 57, 72, 86, 87, 88, 90 [90 is ringed in pen], 99, 110, 117, 118, 125, 127, 137, 139, 149, 150, 177, 179, 191, 206, 212, 216, 229,
232, 233.
b. Evidence offered suggests no explanation:
#1, 2, 10, 17, 21, 29, 37, 40, 51, 52, 58, 61, 62, 64, 68, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 84, 105, 111, 122, 135, 151, 152, 154, 162, 168, 172, 176, 183, 186,
193, 207, 215, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 236, 241, 242, 243, 244, 134.
[end]
----------------------------------------------------
Wow I must of been board!
That's easier to read, and if need be people can copy and paste from that. I didn't really find that one that interesting personally - but is was a
bit of typing practice.
If any one uses any facts from the above be sure to double check with
the original PDF! I'm not perfect
peace!
[edit on 15/11/2007 by Now_Then]