Project Blue Book Special Report (second copy)

(3) Case III does not satisfy Condition 1. It also does not
satisfy Condition 4 when Case II is eliminated as a
good UNKNOWN.
(4) Case IV does not satisfy Conditions 1 or 2. There are
few cigar-shaped or rocket-shaped objects reported in
the literature. In addition, this observer is not con-
sidered to be well-qualified technically.
(5) Case V does not satisfy Condition 1. It also does not
satisfy Condition 4 when Case IV is eliminated as a
good UNKNOWN.
It might be argued here that many of the UNKNOWNS might actually
have shapes similar to these good UNKNOWNS. It will be noted, however,
that each of these five cases does not satisfy one of the other three condi-
tions.
(6) Case VI does not satisfy Condition 2. In the description
of the object, it was stated that at certain times there
was no light seen from the object. Apparently, the
"band of no light", as diagrammed by the observer, was
an attempt to explain this. However, if the object were
constructed as shown in the diagram, light should have
been seen at all times. Because of this conflict the
drawing is not considered reliable, and without the draw-
ing, there is not enough detail in the description to make
it useful for this study.
(7) Case VII violates Conditions 1 and 4. Although the shape
is disc-like, the maneuvers performed by the object are
unique both among the UNKNOWNS and among the good
UNKNOWNS.
Cases VIII to XII satisfy Conditions 1 through 3, but they do not
satisfy Condition 4. The features which make them different from each
other are as follows:
(8) Case VIII. The object is smooth, with no protrusions
or other details.
(9) Case IX. The object had rocket or jet pods on each
side that were shooting out flames.
(10) Case X. The object had a fin or rudder.
(11) Case XI. The object had a series of portholes, or
windows, on its under side.
92