28963274.pdf

|  1. DATE | 2. LOCATION | 12. CONCLUSIONS  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  25 Aug 55 | Forland, Missouri | ☐ Was Balloon ☐ Probably Balloon ☐ Possibly Balloon  |
|  3. DATE-TIME GROUP Local GMT 26/0156Z | 4. TYPE OF OBSERVATION ☐ Ground-Visual ☑ Ground-Radar ☐ Air-Visual ☐ Air-Intercept Radar | ☐ Was Aircraft ☐ Probably Aircraft ☐ Possibly Aircraft  |
|  5. PHOTOS ☐ Yes ☑ No | 6. SOURCE military | ☐ Was Astronomical ☐ Probably Astronomical ☐ Possibly Astronomical  |
|  7. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION see rpt | 8. NUMBER OF OBJECTS one | 9. COURSE See rpt  |
|  10. BRIEF SUMMARY OF SIGHTING |   | 11. COMMEN…

MEMO ROUTING SLIP
NEVER USE FOR APPROVALS, DISAPPROVALS, CONCURRENCES, OR SIMILAR ACTIONS

|  1 NAME OR TITLE | Captain Hardin  |
| --- | --- |
|  ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION | ATIC: AFOIN-4E4  |
|  INITIALS |   |
|  DATE |   |
|  CIRCULATE |   |
|  COORDINATION |   |
|  FILE |   |
|  INFORMATION |   |
|  ☑ NECESSARY ACTION |   |
|  NOTE AND RETURN |   |
|  SEE ME |   |
|  SIGNATURE |   |

REMARKS
COC Weather at ADC was contacted with respect to this report. The undersigned was informed that there was a possible temperature inversion at the time and place of the sighting. This, in connection wit…

9/23/55

The information is insufficient to definitely tie down the objects seen as ground targets, although this appears to be the most logical explanation. If additional information regarding the terrain features around the station could be obtained (including objects which could give a good reflected signal (such as large buildings, grain elevators, steel power transmission lines, etc) it might be possible to more definitely establish the source of the reflections.

UNCLASSIFIED

31. USE THIS SHEET FOR ANY COMMENTS, OPINIONS OR ADDITIONAL DATA NOT COVERED BY THE QUESTIONS.

6. The reoccurrence of targets ranged from 60 to 110 nautical miles away. There was no AP in evidence on the East side of the scope.

7. Even though the original target was picked up with the antenna on two degrees, it did not change the intensity or the frequency of reoccurrence when it was lowered to .5 degrees.

8. Though the target painted extremely bright before and immediately after DK 17 was in the area, it painted only very dimly while he was flying in the general vicinity.

9.…

UNCLASSIFIED
31. USE THIS SHEET FOR ANY COMMENTS, OPINIONS OR ADDITIONAL DATA NOT COVERED BY THE QUESTIONS.

At approximately 0156Z, 26 August 1955, A/2C Bossom noticed a blip at 075°, 236 nm. Because he waited to see whether the track would fade, it had progressed to 075°, 220nm before an IP was established at 0158Z. Before another move could be put on the board, Airman Bossom was relieved by A/2C Young. Bossom told Young to watch that particular track as it seemed to be coming pretty fast. Airman Young called in a first move at 0202Z at 075°, 180 nm. All plots were called in as follows:

|  …

UNCLASSIFIED

30. IF SCOPE PHOTOS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, PLOT THE TARGET TRACK AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE. GIVE THE TIME AND ALTITUDE (IF MEASURED) FOR EACH POINT PLOTTED. PUT THE NECESSARY RANGE SCALE ON THE DIAGRAM.

250
200
150
100
50
12. 03 . 02 . 56
15 10 06
ALTITUDE NOT DETERMINED

UNCLASSIFIED

ATIC FORM 332 (REVISED 35 NOR

UNCLASSIFIED

19. ARE PERSONNEL FAMILIAR WITH THE EFFECTS CAUSED BY AN INTERFERING SIGNAL? ☑ YES ☐ NO
COMMENTS:

20. ARE PERSONNEL FAMILIAR WITH THE EFFECTS OF ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION (DUCTING EFFECTS) AS THE PERTAIN TO THIS TYPE OF RADAR? ☑ YES ☐ NO

21. HAS ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION (DUCTING EFFECT) BEEN OBSERVED TO EXTEND THE RANGE OF THE GROUND CLUTTER OF THIS RADAR AT THIS SITE? ☑ YES ☐ NO
COMMENTS: AP and it's results is a daily occurrence at this site.

22. WAS ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION (DUCTING EFFECT) EXTENDING THE RANGE OF THE GROUND CLUTTER AT THE TIME THE TARGET WAS OBSERVED? ☑ YES ☐ NO
COMM…

UNCLASSIFIED

5. HAVE YOU HEARD OF ANYONE NOT AT THE RADAR STATION MAKING A VISUAL SIGHTING AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME THE RADAR CONTACT WAS MADE? ☐ YES ☐ NO
IF SO, GIVE NAME AND ADDRESS.

UNCLASSIFIED

9. RADAR SCOPE PHOTOS:
IS RADAR EQUIPPED WITH A SCOPE CAMERA? ☐ YES ☐ NO
WAS CAMERA OPERATIONAL? ☐ YES ☐ NO
WERE SCOPE PHOTOS TAKEN? ☐ YES ☐ NO
WERE PRINTS OF THE SCOPE PHOTOS FORWARDED TO THE AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER? ☐ YES ☐ NO

10. TRACK DATA:
WHAT WAS THE NUMBER OF THE TRACK? G 62
WAS A PERMANENT PLOT MADE OF THE TRACK AT THE TIME OF THE OBSERVATION? ☐ YES ☐ NO

11. WERE AIRCRA…