Analysis of Flying Object Incidents in the United States, 1948

This 10 December 1948 intelligence analysis, marked declassified, examines about 210 reported flying object incidents in the United States. It sorts the reports into disk-shaped objects, cigar-shaped objects and balls of fire, and weighs domestic misidentification against a possible Soviet origin, with particular attention to German flying-wing designs. It concludes that some type of flying object has been observed but that its identification and origin cannot be determined. Appendices plot the sightings, give selected incident reports and describe flying-wing aircraft.

From the source: Release of 2026-07-10 Incident: 12/10/48, Virginia. This file contains a U.S. Air Force (USAF) Air Intelligence Division study, “Analysis of Flying Object Incidents in the United States,” Study No. 203, dated 12/10/1948. The analysis includes an assessment of various reported unidentified flying object (UFO) incidents and theories to account for their nature and origin. Overall, the study assesses that “it appears that some object has been seen; however, the identification of that object cannot be readily accomplished.” The study offers that two “reasonable” origins might account for the phenomena: technologies of a domestic or foreign origin. It also suggests that, if foreign, it is prudent for the United States to assume that UFO observations are attributable to scientific, military, or intelligence activities of the Soviet Union, and, in that case, to take seriously the threat such objects may pose. The file also contains contemporary UFO reports and examples of experimental “flying wing” type aircraft planforms that might account for certain commonly reported UFO characteristics. AARO Comment: This file appears to be an earlier draft version of the file contained in DOW-UAP-D094, whose content is substantively similar.

ocoolicm. \'bD laat obi,a~tion at \oidcnt1tiod ol>,,1eot,s wao 1n Al)rl.l..
. 194?• 0\ all tour ocoaaiono too tbcJi' Uoon and tl uninantifi-1
objcota wen !rt v1'n thr-l,I objc,o~ f/JAY hDv bOcn ob1orvad rtt.t.lier tl1IJ\ thr d.1.tt:•ront.
~a. Thia ~bility 11 f"llrtbcr nbatlntiate.d by tho taot that in
tM 'Wbo1'W auah ob,3eota bt&fl been obeetrvod U- t4nt1o ot tho three
em oaor~t1on1 io •P~tol-1 tm
'tm S.dtnt1ttcatlon of that obj a\ ®rlnot bet raadU¥ acccul)llebed on tb
bii11 of inl'ormation l'epottod 01:1 oacb incidtnt. tt, 11 po1otbla tha\
obj.ct, or objoot1, 7 betm do!lorltica~ 1&111chad dm.cCNI web
wetmr ballo=a, rook.9t.~ Mr ntal n.,,ttl(! ffinC aircratt, or' cele
ttal phenanana, It la n•o1N11&.\'7 to obtain tnto
aoti"fity to ~firm or deny t.~11 p1>anib1Uty. pendJ.na upon.
With whtoh thie 7 ae<impltehld, tora1 dffloeD 1:l\111\ n con-
•1d• d Bl a po1n1D111ty.
7. 'lh8 pt.item ot •1ftit1n u detinable, 1 tin haw be
t 1n t the ltatea bof'der1n Atlantic clfio
at JJ.ne•• 1r1d c.t.ral 1ta • ot Ohio «nd ent\ieij. A
loc&Uon of el in ;9 1e at obtd •• A paidUt o "• .den • s., not; qo 1.ri&bla.
(1)
ru