ff72c7a07b982db2

28983323.pdf

NARA·NARA_PBB_597821_pdfs-3·pdf·23.7 MB·4 pages

OCR'd text preview (4 of 4 pages)

Source: mistral_ocr · confidence ~95%

page 1
PROJECT 10073 RECORD CARD

|  1. DATE | 2. LOCATION | 12. CONCLUSIONS  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  26 Mar 52 | Charleston, W. Va. | ☐ Was Balloon ☐ Probably Balloon ☐ Possibly Balloon  |
|  3. DATE-TIME GROUP | 4. TYPE OF OBSERVATION | ☐ Was Aircraft ☐ Probably Aircraft ☐ Possibly Aircraft  |
|  Local 0047 EDT GMT 27/04/52 | ☐ Ground-Visual ☐ Air-Visual ☐ Ground-Radar ☐ Air-Intercept Radar | ☐ Was Aeronautic ☐ Probably Aeronautic ☐ Possibly Aeronautic  |
|  5. PHOTOS | 6. SOURCE | ☐ Was Astronomical ☐ Probably Astronomical ☐ Possibly Astronomical  |
|  ☐ Yes ☐ No | Civilian |   |
|  7. LENGTH OF 
page 2
Gentlemen:

At 12:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Tuesday, May 26, 1959 as I was on U.S. Route 50 about two (2) miles West of Burlington, West Virginia, I saw what I presume was a large meteor. I am writing you because of its unusual brilliance and because it seemed to be fragmenting into the tail as it fell. First I was aware of bright light and looked out my window to the left just as it came into my field of vision. It was almost due South and fell slightly to the West of perpendicular. It disappeared behind a low range of mountains which are there. If it were a meteor, as I presume, it exce
page 3
THIS SIDE OF CARD IS FOR ADDRESS

UNITED STATES ARR FORCE
Flying Objects Department
Washington, D. C.

4E4G

1511 6TH ST. 1938
page 4
Witnesses
38

# UFO ANALYSIS SHEET

Location: Burlington, West Virginia.
Date: 26 May 59
Hour (Z): 04473 0047 EOT.
WX: Not Reported
Description: Meteor of Unusual Prelliance

Direction of Motion: NNE - SSN
Satellite: (AFCIN-4F3, Phone 69219)

Astronomical Phenomena (Meteor, Comet, Planet, etc): Reported as a meteor.

Radar Analysis (AFCIN-4E1)

Natural Phenomena (Ball Lightning, etc):

Aircraft, Balloons, Airships, etc:

Other:

Evaluation of Source Reliability: Unknown

Analysis and Conclusions: It is policy to record cases where there is only one witness as "insufficient evidence", however t

Full text and original imagery available on Internet Archive →