---------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================ PROJECT 10073 RECORD CARD -- TRANSCRIPTION File: 1952-09-6383395-Portland-Maine.pdf Transcribed from document image by Claude Sonnet 4.6 ================================================================ FIELD 1 -- DATE: 16 Sep 52 FIELD 2 -- LOCATION: Portland, Maine FIELD 3 -- DATE-TIME GROUP: Local 1622 EDT / GMT [not legible on card] [NOTE: 1622 EDT is the documented departure time from NAS Brunswick, not the sighting time. Supplemental documents establish initial visual sighting at approximately 2345Z (approx 1945 EDT) and first radar contact at 2352Z. The ATIC Test Form 334 worksheet reads Local 1952 EDT / Zebra 2330. The Q&A sheet submitted by the 654th AC&W SQ is the most authoritative source on time.] FIELD 4 -- TYPE OF OBSERVATION: Ground-Visual [ ] Ground-Radar [ ] Air-Visual [X] Air-Intercept Radar [X] FIELD 5 -- PHOTOS: No [X] FIELD 6 -- SOURCE: Navy pilot and crew FIELD 7 -- LENGTH OF OBS: 20 minutes [HARA reported 28 minutes; Q&A sheet places visual contact from 2345Z to 0005Z (approximately 20 minutes); radar contact 2352Z to 2400Z (approximately 8 minutes)] FIELD 8 -- NUMBER OF OBJECTS: 2 FIELD 9 -- COURSE: S (southerly; supplemental documents specify approximately 220 degrees SSW, tracked for over 70 nautical miles) FIELD 10 -- BRIEF SUMMARY: [Blank on record card. Narrative carried in supplemental TWX traffic. Per JEPSN 76 and JEDEN 18F: Lt. J.M. Boak and crew of radar-equipped P2V, VP SQ 26, NAS Brunswick, on local flight, sighted 2 objects in vicinity of Portland, ME. Objects were in formation with one large dark object above and ahead of a second object having 4 or 5 lights arranged in a circle. Visual sighting confirmed by APS-31 airborne radar. Objects tracked on approximately 220-degree heading at 4000 feet altitude for over 70 nautical miles. Objects appeared to take evasive action without breaking formation when P2V attempted to close. Contact broken near Portsmouth, NH when objects turned toward the P2V, then turned SW and flew out of sight.] FIELD 11 -- COMMENTS: [Blank on record card. Evaluator comments appear on ATIC Test Form 334, Section V, handwritten: "Possibilities: SAC refueling operation, Unfortunately no!" Extensive follow-up investigation conducted Sep-Nov 1952 to determine whether two KC-97 tankers known to be in area accounted for the sighting. Investigation found KC-97 times and courses at variance with P2V report.] FIELD 12 -- CONCLUSIONS: Unknown [X] [Confirmed on ATIC Test Form 334, Section V, Final Evaluation: Unknown checked] Form: ATIC FORM 329 (REV 26 SEP 52) Supplemental documents present: ATIC Test Form 334 (13 Aug 52) Project 10073 Worksheet and Balloon/Weather/Evaluation sections; JEPSN 76 (3 pages, from HQ 32D AD Hancock Fld, 19 Sep 52); JEDEN 18F (3 pages, from COC ADC ENT AFB, 22 Sep 52); letter from 654th Aircraft Control and Warning Squadron, NAS Brunswick, 23 Sep 52, with 5 enclosures including Question and Answer sheet, track chart, PPI presentation sketch, and visual appearance statements from Lt. Boak and Lt. Prentiss; CGSAC message traffic (Sep-Nov 52) regarding KC-97 investigation; JEDMH 438 (Oct-Nov 52) requesting interrogation of KC-97 commanders; JEDBO 68 from COADIV 801 Lockbourne AFB (Nov 52) reporting results of KC-97 nav log review and crew interrogation; Project 10073 Weather Data Sheet (16 Sep 52, Brunswick); Adiabatic charts for Portland PWM station; Boston sectional aeronautical charts; aerodrome data pages. ================================================================ SEARCH INDEX TERMS ================================================================ Portland Maine 1952 September naval P2V VP-26 Brunswick NAS APS-31 radar airborne radar unidentified unknown night visual formation dark object lights circle 4000 feet 300 knots evasive SSW 220 degrees Boak Prentiss Hara refueling KC-97 SAC tanker formation towing CECA COCA 654th AC&W 32nd Air Division Hancock Field EADF ATIC pilot naval aviator experienced observer Portsmouth New Hampshire APS31 radar line pip intermittent contact 70 nautical miles 28 minutes 1952 fall autumn New England Maine coast air defense ADIZ Bangor CADIZ lighted weather balloon P-type Rabal Brunswick weather CAVU clear night no moon acceleration deceleration formation maintained evasive action Doddington Hamblen 26 ARS Lockbourne KC97 5-1243 5-1262 ================================================================ CASE ANALYSIS -- Claude Sonnet 4.6 ================================================================ THE OFFICIAL CONCLUSION ATIC evaluated this case as UNKNOWN. That determination appears on both the record card and the accompanying Project 10073 Worksheet. What makes the evaluator's position especially candid is a handwritten note in Section V of the worksheet: "Possibilities: SAC refueling operation, Unfortunately no!" The investigator identified the most attractive conventional explanation, pursued it for two months, and acknowledged in his own hand that it did not hold up. WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS On the night of 16 September 1952, Lt. J.M. Boak and his crew departed NAS Brunswick, Maine, in a radar-equipped P2V patrol aircraft on a local flight. Lt. C.G. Prentiss served as co-pilot; Ensign Hara operated the APS-31 airborne radar. Initial visual contact with two objects was established at approximately 2345 Zulu (roughly 1945 EDT) in the vicinity of Portland. What they saw matched nothing in their experience. One object was large and dark, carrying no visible lights. The other, lower and ahead, displayed four or five bright white lights arranged in a circle. The configuration struck them immediately as resembling a towing or refueling formation -- a large tanker aircraft above and ahead of a receiver. At the ranges involved (2.5 to 3 miles at closest approach) the crew could see the relative geometry clearly against the remaining afterglow of sunset, but could not resolve shapes due to darkness. Ensign Hara's radar confirmed the visual contact at 2352Z. The APS-31 return was unusual: the target appeared as a line on the scope rather than two separate pips, consistent with either a single large object or two objects in very close formation. Hara confirmed the equipment was functioning properly and stated he believed the radar target and the visual objects were the same thing. The crew tracked the objects on an approximate 220-degree heading at 4000 feet altitude for over 70 nautical miles. Lt. Boak reported that the objects at times accelerated to approximately 300 knots, then decelerated rapidly. When he attempted to maneuver the P2V into better position for observation, the objects took evasive action -- but did so without breaking their formation with each other. This last detail struck him as significant enough to mention explicitly when asked whether he believed they were refueling: he did not believe they were, precisely because they maneuvered as a unit without separating. Contact was broken near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, when the objects turned toward the P2V, causing Boak to break off, then turned southwest and flew out of sight. Radar contact was maintained intermittently from 2352Z to 2400Z, with contact possible only when the objects bore 15 to 30 degrees off the P2V's heading. Total visual contact lasted approximately 20 minutes; Ensign Hara, who was dividing his attention between cockpit and radar station, reported 28 minutes. POINTS OF INTEREST / WHAT GIVES ME PAUSE The KC-97 investigation is the heart of this case and deserves careful attention. ATIC knew that two Strategic Air Command KC-97 tankers of the 26th Air Refueling Squadron, Lockbourne AFB -- numbers 5-1243 (Capt. Doddington) and 5-1262 (Capt. Hamblen) -- had been in the general area that night. The possibility that the P2V crew had shadowed a SAC refueling operation without knowing it was obvious and was pursued from September through November 1952. The investigation produced a clear answer: no, and here is why. Review of nav logs and interrogation of both KC-97 commanders at Lockbourne established their actual routes. Hamblen (5-1262) crossed over Portland at approximately 2117Z on a true course of 242 degrees, proceeding to Concord, then holding, then proceeding to Montauk Point. Doddington (5-1234) arrived at Montauk from Elmira at approximately 2246Z. The two aircraft practiced a rendezvous exercise at a point about ten miles west of Providence, Rhode Island -- well south of Portsmouth, NH -- beginning around 0019Z. Crucially, at no time were the two KC-97s flying together in a refueling formation. They were executing a rendezvous approach from separate directions and were separated by at least two miles throughout. Neither commander had any awareness of another aircraft following them, and both stated their positions were known at all times due to clear weather (CAVU). The timing is also problematic. KC-97 5-1262 crossed Portland at 2117Z, which is roughly 1717 EDT -- about two hours before the P2V crew established visual contact at approximately 1945 EDT. By the time the sighting began, the KC-97s would have been well to the south, en route to their rendezvous off the Rhode Island coast, not over or near Portland and Portsmouth. The balloon hypothesis fares no better. Yes, weather balloons -- both pibal and rawin types, lighted -- had been released from Portland in the preceding 82 minutes. But the meteorological data tells against this explanation clearly. Upper-level winds at 4000 feet (the altitude of the objects) were from 250 degrees at 20 knots. A free-floating balloon would drift approximately northeast, not fly a steady SSW heading for over 70 nautical miles. Balloons do not accelerate to 300 knots and decelerate. Balloons do not take evasive action as a unit. Two simultaneous balloons would not maintain a fixed geometric relationship to each other while maneuvering. The observer credentials are strong. Lt. Boak's own statement is worth quoting in substance: he said the appearance of the object did not accurately fit anything he had previously seen or heard of that was flyable, and that he had approximately 1000 hours of flight time with five years of combat sea duty working with naval aircraft. He was also assessed by the squadron intelligence officer as very dependable. Lt. Prentiss was more cautious in his written statement -- he did not want to claim it was definitively an aircraft -- but he described the silhouette as being of that nature, and described steady bright white lights that did not appear to separate from each other. Lt. Britt, the VP SQ intelligence officer, described both pilots as thirty years of age with many years of flying experience and explicitly vouched for their dependability. The scope of the subsequent investigation is itself notable. Routing on the JEPSN messages included OIN, OOP, Army, Navy, JCS, CIA, AFSA, and OAC. This sighting was taken seriously at multiple levels of the military and intelligence community for months. One complication in the record deserves mention. An early SAC response to ATIC's inquiry reported the KC-97s over Portland at approximately 1617 EST on a heading of 036 degrees. The subsequent Lockbourne investigation found their actual heading was 242 degrees at 2117Z. Whether the initial report confused heading with reciprocal, or confused time zones, is not resolved in the file. What matters is that the detailed interrogation of both crews and review of nav logs produced a clear picture that did not match the P2V sighting. BOTTOM LINE This is a genuine UNIDENTIFIED, and a compelling one. The investigation was serious, sustained, and thorough. The most obvious conventional explanation -- military tankers in a refueling configuration -- was investigated down to the level of nav log review and personal interrogation of the pilots involved, and found not to fit the facts. The evaluating officer said so himself in handwriting. What remains is an account by two experienced naval aviators and their crew of two unidentified objects that flew a stable 220-degree formation for over 70 nautical miles, confirmed on airborne radar as a single extended target, displaying acceleration and deceleration beyond what they had previously encountered, and capable of evasive maneuvering as a unit when approached. The night was clear with good visibility. The witnesses were trained observers with combat experience who understood what military aircraft look like at night. The case has no satisfying explanation in the record, and the USAF made no pretense that it did. Unknown, unfortunately, is where it remains. ================================================================ END OF DOCUMENT ================================================================ ----------------------------------------------------------------