Documents / Document

Blue Book file, Rivera and Heaphy (CUFOS)

NICAP / CUFOS · 28 pages · text by OCR

This file, from NICAP and CUFOS, collects US Air Force Office of Special Investigations records from 1949 on a Project Grudge special inquiry into a sighting at Rogue River, Oregon, on 24 May 1949. NACA Ames Laboratory employees Gilbert Rivera and Don Heaphy described a silvery pancake-shaped object about 30 feet across that sped off like a jet. An annotated analysis that follows rejects the radar kite explanation and concludes that the case must remain unexplained.

  • p. 1 …THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, USAF 5TH DISTRICT OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, DAYTON…
  • p. 3 …two copies of the report of Special Agent HARRY M. LEE, of this office, dated 27…
  • p. 4 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS REPORT OF INVESTIGATION FILE NO…
  • p. 11 …SYNOPSIS Investigation requested by District Commander, DO #19, upon receipt of report from Security Officer, N…
  • p. 15 …Reference is made to report of investigation by Special Agent HARRY M.LEE, this office, subject…
  • p. 18 …files of Project Blue Book and of the Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of the Air…
  • p. 19 …This officer requested an investigation, which was subsequently carried out by Special Agent C.E. Brooks…
fuselage subtends several resolution elements and the wings subtend several resolution elements. An object with a structured surface can usually be identified (either by the observer or by an analyst studying an accurate report by the observer) when there are 6-8 resolution elements along any major extension and several elements along any minor extension.

The requirements for typical visual detection, determination of object orientation, object class differentiation, and object identification, are of interest in analyzing this report because here we have a case of an object for which the angular size was sufficient that not only could the observers detect it, but they were also able to assign a general shape (circular or oval) with the naked eye. The ability to make this statement about its shape with the naked eye implies that the angular size of the object was such that it subtended at least two resolution elements in its major dimension. It probably subtended more, but two is sufficient to allow me to make the following point: with the binoculars the angular size was "amplified" by a factor of eight, meaning there were at least about 16 resolution elements across the major dimension of the object, many more than necessary for identification if identification were possible!

Cases discussed

About this file

Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. The text was read from the page images by an OCR model; expect the odd misread word. 28 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.