nt 50,000 ft. and no"/:;:) knots at SS,()()() ft. the plotted track
of the UFO is consistent with the obser'Jcd upper winds. 'Ine hEp
\\'3.5 first "painted" at a 24l)° azimuth, which may explain where that
quantity originated in the UFO movement report.
Conclusion: almost certajnly a weather balloon. Note that the
\\'inds reported fOT the I~Tight-Patterson AFB 1000 LST show winds
blowing first from the east, then from the SSE, ultimaleLy from the
west at higher altitudes. These winds were bloWing in such a manner
that it is conc'::!ivable that Wright-Patterson's own radiosonde halloon
may have been the UFO in this incident.
76-B. Near Charleston, W. Va., 4 May 1966, 0340 LST. Weather:
Severe thunderstorms in area. Pi10t of a Braniff Airlines Boeing 707
flying at 33, 000 ft. observed on his left side what appeared to be a
fas t- flying aircraft with landing lights. Braniff's ai rbornl'; radar
recorded this unknown. Pilot requested the radar operator at Charleston
sector of Indianapolis ARTC to look for traffic at his 8:30 or 9:00
position, and the radar picked up a track in this position. Return
made a sweeping turn and disappeared off scope to the southwest.
t<.r: American Air lines pi lot flying 20 m~i. behind the Brani ff plane
saw the object. It appeared to him to be a normal ai reraft with land-
ing lights. TIlis pilot stated he had often seen such aircraft with
lights during AF refueling missions.
Estimated speed of the unknown was 750-800 mph. No unusual
maneuvers were performed or any th"t were beyond known military aircraft
capabilities at the time. AF explanation ic; that the unknown was an
aircraft wi til lanJing lights on. '111j s is consistent wi th the reported facts.
Case 2. Lakenheath, England, 13-14 August 1956, 2230-0330 LST.
\~eather: ~cner(\ lly c lear until ()300 LST un the 14th. (POI' d0tai 1s
see Section IV.)
The probabi lity that a.nomaluU5 propagal ion of rarbr signals ITJay
have been involved in this case seems to be small. On~ or two detail~
245
[It SO,OOO ft. and .n()~/3:' knots at SS,()()O ft. the plotted track
of the UFO is consistent with the ohser/cd upper winds. 'Ine hlip
1<'3S first "painted" at a 24U o azimuth, which may explain where that
quantity originated in the UFO movement report,
Conclusion: almost certajnly a weather balloon. Notc that the
\\'inds reported for the Wright-Patterson AFB lOOO LST show winds
blowing first from the east, then from the SSE, ultimaLely from the
west at higher altitudes. 'I11ese winds were blowing in such a manner
that it is conc~ivable that Wright-Patterson's own radiosonde halloon
may have been the UFO in this incident.
76-B. Near Charleston, W. Va., 4 May 1960, 0340 LST. Weather:
Severe thunderstorms in area. PiIGt of a Braniff Airline~ Boeing 707
flying at 33,000 ft. observed on his left side what appeared to be a
fast-flying aircraft witll landing lights. Braniff's airborne radar
recorded this unknown. Pilot re4uested the radar operator at Charleston
sector of Indianapolis ARTC to look for traffic at his 8:~O Dr 9:00
pOSition, and the radar picked up a track in this position. Return
made a sweeping turn and disappeared off scope to ttle southwest.
t;r: American Airlines pilot flying 20 mi. behind the Braniff plane
sa" the object. It appeared to him to be a normai aircraft with land-
ing lights. 7his pilot stated he had often seen Stich aircraft wi th
lights during AF refueling missions.
Estimated speed of the unknown was 750-800 mph. No unusual
maneuvers were performed or any that were heyond known military aircraft
capabilities at the time. AF explanation i'l that the unknown was an
aircraft wi til lanJing lights on. 'I11i s is consistent wi th the reported facts.
Case ~. Lakenheatl\, England, 13-14 AUgllst 1956, 2230-0330 lSI.
\~eather: I!cncrally clear until 03110 LST un ':he 14th.
see Section IV.)
(For dtJtai Is
The probability that allomah)U5 propagaUon of rad~!r signals may
have been involved in this case seems to be small. On~ or two detail~
245