================================================================ PROJECT 10073 RECORD CARD -- TRANSCRIPTION File: 1959-10-6962677-OVerPlainville-Kansas.pdf Transcribed by Claude Sonnet 4.6 for GlitchyMatrix.com/bluebook/ ================================================================ FIELD 1 -- DATE: 19 October 1959 FIELD 2 -- LOCATION: Over Plainville, Kansas FIELD 3 -- DATE-TIME GROUP: Local [not recorded; approx. 2225 CDT per time-zone calculation] / GMT 20/0325Z [Note: UFO Analysis Sheet records local time as "1925 Hours" which does not reconcile with 0325Z GMT for any Central timezone offset. The teletype report (D(1) 20 OCT 0325Z) is treated as authoritative. Local time was approximately 2225 CDT (10:25 PM) on 19 October.] FIELD 4 -- TYPE OF OBSERVATION: Ground-Visual [ ] Ground-Radar [ ] Air-Visual [X] Air-Intercept Radar [ ] FIELD 5 -- PHOTOS: No FIELD 6 -- SOURCE: Military FIELD 7 -- LENGTH OF OBS: 1. 20 secs [first sighting] 2. 30 secs [second sighting] [Correction message notes both pilots were startled and actual durations may have been shorter.] FIELD 8 -- NUMBER OF OBJECTS: one FIELD 9 -- COURSE: E then S FIELD 10 -- BRIEF SUMMARY: Bright light, like a star size of Venus, approaching head on, yellowish white. Light faded when evasive action was taken. Light reappeared & disappeared heading South. FIELD 11 -- COMMENTS: Info is not sufficient to allow a definite conclusion. Sighting remains unidentified. Cause could have been two meteors, lights fm another a/c, or even the reflection of ground light[s]. FIELD 12 -- CONCLUSIONS: [ ] Was balloon [ ] Probably balloon [ ] Possibly balloon [ ] Was aircraft [ ] Probably aircraft [ ] Possibly aircraft [ ] Was astronomical [ ] Probably astronomical [ ] Possibly astronomical [X] Other: UNIDENTIFIED [Note: "UNIDENTIFIED" written into the Other field, but the Insufficient Data checkbox appears to be the primary marked conclusion on both form copies.] [X] Insufficient data for evaluation [ ] Unidentified Form: ATIC FORM 329 (REV 26 SEP 52) [Note: Record card appears twice -- original and carbon copy.] Supplemental documents present (in chronological order): (1) UFO Report Teletype, 3 pages, Report No. OS 9187J FM HQ LOWRY to AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, COMDR 34TH ADIV, AIR TECH INTELLIGENCE CEN WPAFB, HQ USAF AFCIN, SEC USAF SAFIS Sent: 202335Z OCT 59 (20 Oct at 2335Z) Received at ATIC: 21 Oct 59 (AF IN 21222) Aircraft: T-33, tail no. 53-5535, 40,000 feet, 220 degrees on J10V airway, 390 knots TAS, Lowry Observer (F2): [redacted] Captain, United States Air Force Academy, Instructor of English; reliability [rated; see Analysis Sheet] (2) Follow-up query -- Joint Message Form (DD Form 173) From: ATIC, W-P AFB (AFCIN-4E4g 10-2145-E) To: Lowry AFB, Colo. Dated: 22 Oct 59, 1955 [hours] Typed by: Major Robert J. Friend, AFCIN-4E4g Signed: Louis J. Harrell, Captain, USAF, Asst. Administrative Officer Requests: identity of second light, heading at first object disappearance, elevation/azimuth each sighting, details of evasive action taken (3) Correction/amplification response from HQ Lowry Ref OS 9595M / AFCIN-4540-10-2145-E Received ATIC: 4 Nov 59 / telephoned to AMUC Command Post 3 Nov 59 Provides detailed corrections and additional pilot narrative; notes both pilots were startled (4) UFO Analysis Sheet (AFCIN) Location: Plainville, Kansas Date: 19 Oct (1925 Hours local -- see Field 3 note) Hour (z): 20/0325Z WX: Clear Description: Lights moving at high speed Direction of motion: Eastward and then south Astronomical phenomena: The possibility exists that this object was a meteor Radar analysis (AFCIN-4E1): N/A Natural phenomena (ball lightning, etc.): N/A Aircraft, balloons, airships, etc.: Possibility of another aircraft Source reliability: Probably good Analysis and conclusions: The information is not sufficient to allow a conclusion as to the specific nature of this object. It could have been a meteor, aircraft or even a light on the ground... [remainder partially illegible in cursive] ================================================================ SEARCH INDEX TERMS ================================================================ Plainville Kansas Norton-County Great-Plains Over-Kansas 1959 October 1950s night air-visual T-33 jet 40000-feet 390-knots J10-airway two-pilots USAF-Academy airborne military head-on approaching yellowish-white Venus-sized bright-light evasive right-turn faded reappeared southerly E-then-S Lowry-AFB OS-9187J CDT meteor aircraft-possible UFO-analysis-sheet insufficient-data UNIDENTIFIED Friend Harrell Blue-Book ATIC 53-5535 34th-ADIV correction-message startled ================================================================ CASE ANALYSIS -- Claude Sonnet 4.6 ================================================================ THE OFFICIAL CONCLUSION ----------------------- The ATIC form carries [X] Insufficient Data for Evaluation as the primary marked Field 12 conclusion, with "UNIDENTIFIED" written into the Other field. Field 11 states the sighting remains unidentified and offers three candidate explanations without settling on one: two meteors, lights from another aircraft, or ground light reflection. The ATIC UFO Analysis Sheet reaches the same position: source reliability "probably good," but information insufficient for a specific conclusion. The case generated active follow-up -- a query from Major Robert J. Friend (AFCIN-4E4g, Blue Book at the time) to Lowry AFB resulted in a correction and amplification message received 3-4 November 1959 -- but the additional information did not resolve the evaluation. WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS ----------------------- Two pilots in a T-33 (tail number 53-5535) at 40,000 feet, on J10 Victor airway at 390 knots TAS, heading approximately east, on a clear night with the moon behind the aircraft. Weather at altitude: ceiling and visibility unlimited, winds 270 degrees at 55 knots (westerly). The observer identified in the reporting form is a Captain assigned to the United States Air Force Academy as an Instructor of English. First sighting (approximately 20 seconds): A yellowish-white light appeared ahead of the aircraft, approaching head-on. Initially the apparent size of Venus or a pea-sized star, it grew in apparent size as it approached. No structural detail was discernible -- flight characteristics only. No tail, trail, exhaust, or sound notation. The light was approximately 5 degrees below the aircraft's horizon at initial sighting. The pilot in the rear cockpit initiated evasive action -- a moderately rapid right turn on instruments. As the turn began, the pilot in front reported the light had abruptly faded out. The aircraft was leveled and the original course resumed. Second sighting (approximately 30 seconds, possibly shorter): In less than one minute after resuming course, the light was seen again -- now on an apparent southerly heading. It moved quite rapidly and faded out, disappearing over the horizon. The correction message from Lowry AFB adds that no verification was possible that both lights came from the same source, but there was no reason to believe otherwise. The first object faded on approximately the same heading as when first observed (approximately 085 degrees). Elevation judgment was noted as approximate, made using the estimated horizon line on the windshield since the true horizon was not visible at 40,000 feet. Both pilots were noted as having been startled, and the actual observation durations may have been shorter than reported. POINTS OF INTEREST / WHAT GIVES ME PAUSE ----------------------------------------- The evasive action correlation is the analytical pivot. The rear-cockpit pilot initiated a right turn specifically to avoid a possible collision course with a "rapidly approaching subject" (the amplification message's phrasing). As that turn began, the front-cockpit pilot independently reported the light had abruptly faded. This is a simultaneous two-observer event where the object's disappearance coincided precisely with the aircraft's maneuver. For a meteor: a bright fireball approaching from the east on a head-on geometry at 40,000 feet is plausible, and the apparent size growth is consistent with closing distance. But the reappearance within one minute on a southerly heading is very difficult to attribute to a meteor. Two separate meteors on different headings within 90 seconds is possible but strains credibility in a case where continuity was assumed by both pilots. For another aircraft: the scenario maps reasonably. A high- performance aircraft on a reciprocal westbound heading at or near 40,000 feet approaches head-on, its lights grow in apparent size, the T-33 turns right, the approaching aircraft passes and its lights are no longer visible from the new aspect, the T-33 levels back to east, and the other aircraft is now on a southerly heading heading away. This geometry is consistent. The absence of any ATC traffic advisory for the area at the time, and no mention of radar contact in the record, is notable but not dispositive -- J10V airway would have been monitored by ARTCC, and an uncontrolled aircraft at FL400 in 1959 was not impossible. The observer's identification as an Instructor of English at the Air Force Academy is unusual. Academy faculty members did maintain flight proficiency, and a captaincy at the Academy indicates a qualified officer. The Analysis Sheet rates source reliability as "probably good," which is the correct assessment for a current USAF officer with no evident credibility issues. BOTTOM LINE ----------- The case was classified Insufficient Data for Evaluation because the reporting chain never generated enough specifics to confirm or eliminate any of the three candidate explanations -- meteor, aircraft, ground light. The follow-up by Major Friend was the right investigative move, and the correction message improved detail, but the fundamental data gaps (no radar correlation, no other aircraft identified, no elevation/azimuth measurements beyond approximations) remained. Of the three candidates offered, another aircraft is the most coherent single explanation for both the approach and the reappearance heading south. A meteor pair is possible but coincidental. Ground light reflection at 40,000 feet in conditions of ceiling and visibility unlimited with a reported head-on approach is the least convincing. The case is Insufficient Data, which is honest, and the remaining uncertainty is real. ================================================================ https://glitchymatrix.com/bluebook/ GlitchyMatrix Project Blue Book Archive All 10,808 declassified USAF UFO case files, 1945-1969 ================================================================