================================================================ PROJECT 10073 RECORD CARD -- TRANSCRIPTION File: 1964-04-8690879-Monticello-Wisconsin.pdf Transcribed from document image by Claude Sonnet 4.6 ================================================================ FIELD 1 -- DATE: 3 April 1964 [Note: J. Allen Hynek's 16 October 1964 letter states the record card "incorrectly dated as 2 April." The GMT field entry of 04/0300Z (= 2100 CST on April 3) confirms the local date was April 3. All witness accounts and the staff message confirm April 3.] FIELD 2 -- LOCATION: Monticello, Wisconsin FIELD 3 -- DATE-TIME GROUP: Local [not recorded] / GMT 04/0300Z [0300Z April 4 = 2100 CST April 3 = approximately 9:00 PM local time] FIELD 4 -- TYPE OF OBSERVATION: Ground-Visual [XX] Ground-Radar [ ] Air-Visual [ ] Air-Intercept Radar [ ] FIELD 5 -- PHOTOS: No [XX] FIELD 6 -- SOURCE: Civilian FIELD 7 -- LENGTH OF OBS: 3-4 minutes [Note: This reflects the closest observation phase. Total sighting including pursuit was 5-15 minutes per Hynek; witness estimated ~10 min.] FIELD 8 -- NUMBER OF OBJECTS: One FIELD 9 -- COURSE: Varied/ FIELD 10 -- BRIEF SUMMARY: Obj with four wheels like small ferris-wheel. Lights only visible. Four huge red lights with other lights of white and green. No sound. Obj observed near ground, then it took off in a canted altitude (?) with elevation and azimuth unknown. Hovered. object and auto approached each other on parallel course about 300 ft apart. Obj then veered away and disappeared. Duration 3-4 minutes. Night sighting. Four witnesses. Reported four days after sighting. FIELD 11 -- COMMENTS: [blank] FIELD 12 -- CONCLUSIONS: Other: UNIDENTIFIED [XX] Form: ATIC FORM 329 (REV 26 SEP 52) ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS IN THIS FILE FTD Form 164 (OCT 62 edition) -- Primary Witness Date: 3 April 1964. Time: 8:45 PM (approx.), CST, Standard. Location: Monticello, Wisconsin. In a car; open countryside. Duration: ~10 minutes (just a guess; in sight continuously). Sky: Night -- Cloudy, Very Dark. Stars: None. Moon: No moonlight -- pitch dark. Weather: Thick or heavy clouds; Dry. Object appeared: As lights (option d). Brightness: Brighter than brightest stars. Q. 11.1: "brighter than aircraft lights in the distance but at the distance sighted probably equal in brightness." Edges: Other -- "could see no surface except a small metallic area lighted by a greenish-white light, shape suggested by placement of the lights." Object behaviors: Stand still: Yes Speed up/rush away: Yes Break up/explode: No Smoke: No Change brightness: No Change shape: No (not at all) Flash or flicker: No (not a flasher) Disappear and reappear: No Q. 14 (disappear how): "yes -- it had remained stationary for some time and then began moving away at a slow speed but when we turned the car around and attempted to follow it, it gained speed and disappeared toward Monticello veering around the town itself." Q. 15: Moved behind telephone poles and wires. Q. 16: Moved in front of the opposite hill slope of the valley. Sound: "none that could be heard above our idling engine." Color: "only of lights; red, green + a greenish-white." Q. 18 (angular size): "only a single light, a small fraction of the total area encompassed by the lights." Q. 19 (sketch): Shows multiple positions as object moved; notation "This light reflected from metal." Dotted outline suggesting general shape. Also: "visually unconnected lights -- but they obviously were connected as they remained in a consistent relationship to each other." Q. 20 (speed): "from dead stop gradually to speeds much greater than 60 MPH, as it left very fast." Q. 21 (distance): At closest, approx 100 yards. Q. 26 (description): "none -- possibly a vertical take off aircraft, but without wings. -- a hall tree with an exaggerated base." Q. 30: Never seen before. Others present: Yes; all saw the object. Mrs. [redacted], [redacted] Ave., Madison 5, Wis. [wife] [redacted] J., Argyle, Wis. [wife's father, Marine Major Ret.] Mrs. [redacted], Argyle, Wis. [wife's mother] Observer info: Age 21, Male, Madison, Wisconsin. Graduate student in anthropology, University of Wisconsin. Questionnaire completed: 5 May 1964. Note written at Q. 34: "Got mislaid till now we are very sorry." Witness sketch (separate page, labeled 04171): Detailed "180-degree camera view" diagram showing County C Road from Monticello (left) toward Argyle (right), with numbered sequence positions (1-5b) showing the object's approach, hover, and departure. Legend: solid circle = red running light; starburst circle = red flasher light; open circle = white light; half-filled circle = green running light; tiny dots = tiny green lights "like Italian Christmas- tree lights." Position 4 on diagram marked: "stopped, headlights off, window open." Note on sketch: "only lights seen. Structure and shading shown only to clarify perspective." Executive Officer telephone report, 7 April 1964: Filed by Warren J. Lane, Lt Colonel, USAF, Executive Officer. Report received at approximately 1515 hours, 7 April 1964 from a male identifying himself as a Major, US Marine Corps, Retired, of Argyle, Wisconsin. Described as "entirely sober, rational and calm." He stated he felt certain observations should be made known to proper authority. His wife and youngest daughter had dissuaded him from reporting "out of their feelings that people 'will think we're crazy.'" Party: Major USMC Ret.; his wife; young daughter, age 13; son-in-law (Mr. [redacted]); and married daughter (Mrs. [redacted]). Returning from furniture shopping, Friday night, 3 April, ~2100 hrs. Object summary in this report: -- Two red lights at a distance; initially taken for police cars at accident scene -- On closer approach: four huge red lights along with other lights -- At closest approach all lights went out and object took to the air -- Observed at 300 feet or less -- No superstructure; four main sections connected together; nothing resembling wings; took off in a canted attitude rising sharply -- No sound accompanying take-off Staff Message AF IN 41795, 9 Apr 1964 (3 pages): From: HQ Chicago ADS Truax Fld Wis To: ADC Ent AFB Colo; FTD WPAFB Ohio; OSAF Wash DC; CSAF Wash DC UFO sighted 0300Z 3 April 1964 by civilian; reported 2115Z 7 April. A. Description: Shape: No superstructure, four main sections connected together. "Looked like Tinker Toys." Size: Small ferris wheel. Color: Unknown with exception of lights. Number: One. Features: Four (4) huge red lights along with white and green lights. No sound. B. Course: First observed near ground. Took off in canted altitude, elevation and azimuth unknown. Hovered above ground. Object and auto approached each other on parallel course at approx 300 ft apart. Object veered away from Monticello and disappeared. Observation time approx 3-4 minutes. C. Ground visual. No radar, no photos. D. 03/0300Z APR 64. Night. E. Location: 1 mile west of Monticello, Wisconsin. F. Witnesses: Mr. and Mrs. [redacted], Madison, Wis. Reliability: Good. Mr. [redacted] and young daughter, Argyle, Wis. Reliability: Good. G. Preparing officer: 1st Lt Charles R. Piver, 70531A, Staff Intelligence Officer, Chicago Air Defense Sector. Conclusion: "Sources seem reliable but no information at this headquarters can confirm. No explanation of sighting can be made." Weather data request (TDEW/69216, 2 Nov 64): Major Hector Quintanilla Jr., Chief, Aerial Phenomena Branch. Requests surface weather data for Monticello, Wisconsin on 2 Apr 64. [Note: This uses the incorrect date from the record card. Actual sighting was April 3, 1964 local time. Weather data sheets in the file cover Madison, Wis. (Truax Field) for April 2, 1964.] Available weather data from Truax Field (~25 miles from Monticello): Cloudy to overcast throughout the day; sunrise and sunset: CLDY. Temperature: ~47-57 degrees F range. Fastest mile: 28 mph from NE. [Weather data for the actual night of April 3 is not in the file. The FTD 164 witness describes sky as cloudy/very dark; no moon or stars. The FTD analysis notes "weather was reported as being cloudy by the local weather bureau."] Lowry AFB routing letter: From: Armed Forces Air Intelligence Training Center, Lowry AFB, CO. Signed: Wayne A. Kramer, 1/Lt, USAF, UFO Officer, AFAITC. Witness's initial letter was misdirected to Lowry; forwarded per AFR 200-2. Further inquiries directed to CIO, Hq 30th Air Division (SAGE), Truax Field, Wisconsin 53707. Quintanilla follow-up letters to witnesses (30 April 1964): Two "Official File Copy" letters from Hector Quintanilla Jr., Captain, USAF, Chief, Aerial Phenomena Branch -- one to the Argyle address (Marine Major) and one to Madison (son-in-law). Both requesting completion of FTD Form 164 questionnaire. "Thank you for reporting this unknown object to the Air Force." FTD/ATIC formal analysis narrative (undated): Full sighting summary followed by conclusions: Aircraft (general): Ruled out. No noise heard by any observer even with one window rolled down. Helicopter specifically: Ruled out. Subtended angle much too great to have been a helicopter at one hundred yards. No landing lights (required for a helicopter hovering at that altitude and proximity to the ground). Scientific balloon: Ruled out. Balloons descending to ground level do not suddenly take off and rise rapidly as reported. Weather: "The weather was reported as being cloudy by the local weather bureau." Conclusion: "With the information available a conclusive explanation is lacking. This factor makes this case unidentified." Hynek personal interview report, 16 October 1964 (7 pages): Dearborn Observatory, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. To: Major Hector Quintanilla, FTD, Wright-Patterson AFB. RE: Monticello, Wisconsin Sighting of 3 April 1964 (incorrectly dated as 2 April on the record card). Interview conducted October 10, 1964 in Madison, Wisconsin. Accompanied by: Mrs. Hynek, William Powers, and Jacques Vallee. Primary witness assessment: Hynek rates the son-in-law "exceedingly high" in reliability, describing him as "about as knowledgeable and articulate a witness as I have interviewed in a long while." Key sighting details from interview: -- Party leaving Monticello on County C toward Argyle at about 9 PM, confirmed by stores just closing; "night was quite dark" -- Two red blinkers first seen in the 11:00 position; first mistaken for police cars, then for a crashing airliner on approach course -- Car stopped, headlights off, window rolled down -- Object slowed to hover right alongside car; approx 100 yards left -- Four red lights at roughly the vertices of a rectangle; one white light "in front" of the others; host of minor lights at closest approach; green lights also noted at some point during observation -- At closest approach: subtended approximately thirty degrees of arc; so large some lights extended above telephone wires while viewed from below them; arrangement resembled "flying hatrack" or "halltree" -- No body or superstructure visible at any time; lights only -- Red lights at times reflected dimly off a metallic surface -- No sound even with window open and radio at low volume -- Object "appeared interested in the car"; "gave indication of intelligent operation" -- Driver started motor and attempted pursuit; futile; object exceeded 50 mph immediately; disappeared toward Monticello -- 12-year-old fell to car floor in terror; had nightmares that night -- Total duration: somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes; five minutes described as a minimum Helicopter hypothesis considered and rejected on four grounds: 1. No sound whatever, even when car was stopped and stationary, with window open and radio low enough that a powered craft would have been heard 2. A VTOL aircraft seen on British television weeks later had same trajectory but produced substantial noise -- different from what they experienced 3. Subtended angle much too great to have been a helicopter at 100 yards 4. No landing lights for a helicopter hovering below telephone wire level Hynek's refueling mission check: "my understanding is that refueling missions do not occur below twenty thousand feet, in which case the subtended angles, angular speeds, etc. are completely out of line." Comparison to Socorro: "It occurs to me, that had this been a daytime sighting, we might have had something similar to the Socorro sighting except, of course, for the total absence of noise. It differs also, of course, in that there was no actual landing. This case, therefore, joins the group of unidentifieds which seems to grow at a steady (and distressing) rate." On witnesses: "I find it impossible to dismiss this instance as a product of excited imaginations or as a desire for publicity, etc. Indeed, these witnesses had no intention of telling their story originally; the wife's father, I believe it is, is a Marine and felt it was their duty to report it." On witness reliability indicators: "There was a total absence of hidebound positiveness about what they had seen... There was none of the attitude of 'you-can't-tell-me-what-I've-seen'... but rather a calm consideration and evaluation of various possibilities." They frequently disagreed with each other on minor points (number of lights, exact geometric relationship) while reconstructing from memory. Hynek calls this "a good sign." Final recommendation: revisit the scene with the mother and daughter in daytime; obtain weather records for the actual night. On the witness sketch: "By the way, I think [the primary witness's] diagram is a pretty good one. He put a lot of work into getting the details for it." Signed "Allen" (J. Allen Hynek). ================================================================ SEARCH INDEX TERMS ================================================================ Monticello Wisconsin Green County April 1964 night sighting civilian ferris wheel tinker toys four sections no superstructure lights only four red lights white light green lights Italian Christmas tree lights hovering hover low altitude near ground canted takeoff silent no sound no noise automobile car stop parallel approach 100 yards 300 feet 300 feet angular size thirty degrees telephone poles wires County C Road Argyle Wisconsin Madison Wisconsin University of Wisconsin graduate student anthropology Marine Corps retired Major family four witnesses UNIDENTIFIED Hynek J Allen Hynek personal interview Jacques Vallee Vallee William Powers Quintanilla FTD Truax Field Chicago Air Defense Sector aerial phenomena branch Socorro comparison 1964 spring Green County rural Wisconsin intelligent operation interested in car accelerate dead stop sixty mph chase pursuit flying hatrack halltree metallic reflection geometric relationship physical structure overcast pitch dark cloudy nightmares frightened child terror VTOL vertical takeoff ================================================================ CASE ANALYSIS -- Claude Sonnet 4.6 ================================================================ THE OFFICIAL CONCLUSION Project Blue Book classified this case as UNIDENTIFIED. The formal FTD analysis narrative states: "With the information available a conclusive explanation is lacking. This factor makes this case unidentified." The Chicago Air Defense Sector reached the same conclusion the day the report was received: "Sources seem reliable but no information at this headquarters can confirm. No explanation of sighting can be made." Six months after the event, J. Allen Hynek conducted a personal interview and wrote to Quintanilla that "this sighting must remain in the unidentified category, in my opinion, unless drastically new information is received." These are not officials defaulting to UNIDENTIFIED for lack of data. This is a case where specific conventional explanations were formally tested against the evidence, found inadequate on multiple independent grounds, and documented. WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS At approximately 9:00 PM CST on April 3, 1964, four people were driving westward on County C Road out of Monticello, Wisconsin, heading toward the town of Argyle. The group consisted of a University of Wisconsin graduate student in anthropology and his wife (both in their early twenties, both University of Wisconsin students), along with his wife's parents -- a retired US Marine Corps Major and his wife -- and the couple's twelve-year-old daughter, who was in the back seat. About one mile west of Monticello they noticed two red blinkers in the eleven o'clock position. Their immediate interpretation was police cars at an accident scene -- that lasted only seconds. The lights were too far above ground level for that to be plausible. The next impression was that an airliner was about to crash directly on their approach path. They stopped the car, turned off the headlights, and rolled down a window. As the object came closer it slowed to a hovering position alongside the road, approximately 100 yards to the left. What they saw was a configuration of lights only -- no body, no superstructure, no wings, no navigation lights in any conventional arrangement. Four huge red lights at roughly the corners of a rectangle; one white light forward of the group; a host of smaller lights at closest approach; and at some point during the observation, green lights including what the witness described as tiny green lights "like Italian Christmas-tree lights." The overall arrangement suggested what they would later call a "flying hatrack" or "halltree." The lights maintained a fixed geometric relationship throughout the entire sighting, and on a few occasions the red lights appeared to reflect dimly off a metallic surface. At closest approach, the object subtended approximately thirty degrees of arc above the horizon. This is an extraordinary angular size. If the distance was accurately estimated at 100 yards (300 feet), a 30-degree subtended angle implies an object spanning roughly 155 to 165 feet across. The object was large enough that although the witnesses were viewing it primarily from below the local telephone wires, some of its lights extended above those wires. Hynek, after interviewing them, notes they believed that had it come closer, it might just have been able to fit between successive telephone poles along the road -- implying the object's apparent width was in the range of a typical rural utility pole spacing of 100 to 150 feet. Throughout the entire encounter -- including the period when the car was stopped with a window open -- not one of the four witnesses heard any sound. The radio was on at low volume. Hynek specifically tested this: the music level was low enough that a powered craft at that range would certainly have been audible. The object eventually passed slightly to the rear of the car, at which point the driver started the engine, turned on the headlights, and executed a U-turn via a farmer's driveway to give chase. The object accelerated from stationary to speeds well above 60 mph and disappeared in the direction of Monticello, veering around the town. The pursuit at up to 50 mph was futile. The twelve-year-old fell to the car floor in terror during the closest approach, hiding as much as possible. She had nightmares that night. POINTS OF INTEREST 1. Hynek conducted this interview personally, accompanied by Mrs. Hynek, William Powers, and Jacques Vallee. Vallee would go on to become one of the most influential figures in UFO research worldwide; this is one of the few documented cases in the Blue Book archive where he was present during a primary witness interview. Hynek's assessment of the primary witness is among the strongest found anywhere in his Blue Book correspondence: "about as knowledgeable and articulate a witness as I have interviewed in a long while. I would rate his reliability exceedingly high." He bases this not on credentials alone but on the manner in which the witness and his wife reconstructed the event: they frequently disagreed with each other on minor points -- the exact number of smaller lights, the precise geometric arrangement -- while working from six-month-old memory. Hynek identifies this as a positive indicator: witnesses who are confabulating a harmonious account do not spontaneously disagree on details. He notes explicitly the absence of any attitude of insisting they knew what it was, finding instead "a calm consideration and evaluation of various possibilities." 2. The subtended angle of thirty degrees is the central physical fact of this case. At 100 yards and 30 degrees, the implied object width is approximately 160 feet -- in the range of a Boeing 707's wingspan and well beyond any helicopter of the era. Standard military and commercial helicopters of 1964 ranged from about 40 to 90 feet in overall dimensions. Hynek specifically writes: "There seems to be no doubt in their minds as to the very large angle subtended by the object." The FTD analysis, the staff message, and Hynek's report all independently identify the angular size as the primary barrier to the helicopter hypothesis. If the distance estimate was substantially wrong -- say, 500 yards rather than 100 -- the angular size calculation drops but the implied object size remains large, and the case for any known 1964 aircraft at that distance producing those angular dimensions does not improve. Hynek also checked and rejected the aerial refueling formation hypothesis: refueling missions do not occur below twenty thousand feet, at which altitude the subtended angles would be entirely inconsistent with what was reported. 3. The helicopter hypothesis was rejected on four independent grounds, not one. No sound with window open and low background noise. Angular size inconsistent with any helicopter at reported distance. Absence of legally required landing lights for a helicopter hovering at low altitude. And a corroborating observation: a few weeks after the sighting, the witnesses saw a British VTOL aircraft on television that exhibited similar trajectory characteristics, but they specifically noted that the British device produced substantial noise -- which they identified as different from their experience. All four objections need to be wrong simultaneously for the helicopter explanation to survive. 4. The witnesses had no intention of reporting. The family patriarch -- a retired US Marine Corps Major -- was persuaded to hold off by his wife and youngest daughter for four days, out of fear that people would think they were crazy. He eventually called in because, as a Marine officer, he felt an obligation to report an observation of potential military significance. The Air Force officer who took his initial call described him as "entirely sober, rational and calm." The witnesses who did not report -- who tried actively to discourage reporting -- are not people who sought attention for the sighting. Their account reached investigators only because a retired military officer's sense of duty overcame his family's reluctance. This trajectory of reluctant disclosure is associated with honest reporting and is the opposite of attention-seeking. 5. Hynek directly compares this case to the Zamora/Socorro sighting of April 24, 1964 -- which occurred three weeks after Monticello and is among the most celebrated and carefully investigated cases in the entire Blue Book archive. Hynek writes: "It occurs to me, that had this been a daytime sighting, we might have had something similar to the Socorro sighting except, of course, for the total absence of noise. It differs also, of course, in that there was no actual landing. This case, therefore, joins the group of unidentifieds which seems to grow at a steady (and distressing) rate." Hynek's frustration with the accumulation of unresolved cases is evident in that parenthetical. 6. The date error in the record card (April 2 recorded instead of April 3) and the consequent weather data pull for the wrong night represent a genuine gap in the investigation. Weather data from the actual night of April 3 is not in the file. The witnesses recall the night as very dark with no moon or stars visible and thick clouds, consistent with the overcast conditions documented at Truax Field (25 miles away) on the adjacent dates. However, the specific wind and atmospheric conditions for the actual sighting location and time were never formally documented, which Hynek specifically flagged as an important gap. BOTTOM LINE The Monticello sighting is the kind of case that makes UNIDENTIFIED classifications durable. The witnesses are numerous and independently consistent. The primary observer is rated by Hynek as the best he had interviewed in a long time, after a six-month-delayed personal interview in the company of Vallee and Powers. The object's characteristics -- specifically the silence and the angular size -- cannot be accommodated by any conventional 1964 aircraft, and this was not a failure of investigation but a documented conclusion reached after explicitly testing three separate hypotheses and rejecting each one. Hynek's closing observation cuts to what stays with you about this case: "The observers are obviously intelligent people who would far prefer to accept a rational terrestrial explanation for their sighting but are unable to find one. They are most anxious for us to tell them what it was." They were not anxious for validation. They were anxious for an answer. Sixty years on, the file still has none to offer. ================================================================ END OF DOCUMENT ================================================================ GlitchyMatrix.com/bluebook/ -- Project Blue Book Archive ================================================================