CIA Memorandum: Comments on 00-B-90229, Sighting of Unconventional Aircraft
This CIA memorandum, addressed to the Director of Central Intelligence and signed by Herbert Scoville Jr. (Assistant Director, Scientific Intelligence), offers technical comment on report 00-B-90229 describing the sighting of an 'unconventional aircraft.' The author notes that the distance and lighting conditions of the sighting made it extremely difficult to determine what was seen. The description is said to fit, in some degree, a vertical-take-off aircraft or a missile/aircraft launched from a zero-length rail, though such a launch would produce a large, noticeable flame and smoke, and the reported spiraling of the object as it left the launcher does not fit well with a vertical-take-off aircraft. The memo concludes the small amount of detail does not permit identification, but tends to indicate the object was not a 'flying saucer.' It references that in 1954 the Scientific Advisory Board to the Chief of Staff, USAF, appointed an ad hoc committee of three scientists to evaluate 'Project Y,' which found overlooked or minimized factors (payload, drag, mechanical design) and recommended against continued support; Air Force support then shifted to basic research on vertical thrust. The document is part of the CIA's declassified reading-room holdings.
Description
A declassified CIA memorandum addressed to the Director of Central Intelligence providing scientific commentary on report 00-B-90229, concerning the sighting of an unconventional aircraft. Signed by Herbert Scoville Jr., Assistant Director for Scientific Intelligence.
Claims
Air Force support for the project shifted to basic research on vertical thrust, modifying the flying-saucer concept.
85%The distance and lighting conditions made it extremely difficult to determine what the sighted object was.
85%The sparse detail in the report tends to indicate the object was not a 'flying saucer'.
80%In 1954 the USAF Scientific Advisory Board appointed an ad hoc committee of three scientists that recommended against support for 'Project Y'.
80%Zero-length launching could only be accomplished with a rocket producing a large, noticeable flame and smoke.
75%In 1954 an ad hoc committee found Project Y overlooked payload, drag, and mechanical design factors and recommended against supporting the project.
70%The object sighted, given the limited detail, tends to indicate it was not a 'flying saucer.'
60%A zero-length launch could only be accomplished with a rocket producing a large, noticeable flame and smoke, and the observed spiraling does not fit a vertical-take-off aircraft.
60%The sighting description fits, in some degree, a vertical-take-off aircraft or a missile/aircraft launched from a zero-length rail.
55%
Events
Dec 31, 1953
USAF Scientific Advisory Board appoints ad hoc committee to evaluate Project Y
A committee of three scientists found payload, drag, and mechanical design problems had been overlooked, recommending against support for the project.
Sighting of unconventional aircraft (report 00-B-90229)
A source reported an unusual spiraling object under poor distance and lighting conditions, assessed by CIA scientific intelligence.
Dec 31, 1953
Appointment of ad hoc committee to evaluate Project Y
The Scientific Advisory Board to the Chief of Staff, USAF, appointed a three-scientist committee that recommended against support for Project Y.
Sighting reported in 00-B-90229
Sighting of an unconventional aircraft under poor distance and lighting conditions, described in the referenced report.
Dates mentioned
Keywords
Entities
Organizations
Programs
Extracted text (OCR)
: - . . . ar) 5
e. : . : “ to ae, - . nr) ‘ .
. e - ™ : ‘ ‘ . °
. a . . Dope A woes ss oy oy!
. . “Fos . a s . +. we ° ¥ - .
: PF . ot ae OM at mt vette ag .
; « eo the . (ft - Stems eerie”
. . . iy
a ~ . s Foie teeth ee
:
3
a
:
>In 1954, the Scientific Advisory “Board”
eee tad ™
: : . ——-
st 2 ait ot oy
yf ao : a gc ee \ oe *
a, : td bet Nea, rd
\
tems eee cee oe ee eee eee ee awe me. ae a vee ee ten s
’ ~
om oo ere!
: - rete tf
s
PEMORADUM FORD Director of Central Intelligence -—-_ aes
Corazents on 00-B-90229, Sighting of ~~ oN
“SUBJECT H
Unconventional éircraft.... .--
1. ‘The distance ood Mehting conditions under vaich the
ted the unusual object would make it extremely Gifficult
source sighte wus Ua ch
to determine just what was being seaa. In sone degree, the -
description fits-a-vertical-teke-off eircraft or amissile or :
i: The zero. length-leuneching cs esis
aircraft lawiched from a zero length vel
could most certainly be acconplisned only with 4 rocket which would
produce a=large-flane and smoke which would havé been very noticeable.
‘tne spiraling-of the object as it left the Jauncher.does not fit very
well with a-vertical take-off aircraft.
2, The-very-snall eariount of details given in the referencegQ=—
fication of the object sighted. It ~
report does not permit an identi
does, however, tend.to indicate. that {tiwas not a "flying saucer’.
to the Chiefof- Staff, USAF,
appointed an ed: hoc. committee of three scientists-to evaluate
project "Y". ‘he comnittee-found that several factors had been. ee
overlooked or minimized in their develcument, sich as payloed, - i
dxvag factors, and mechanical desien problews, to such an extent that: —
recommended against suovort for the project. Air Force... ... he
the cormittee.
the project now is in vasic research concerned with =~ . _
ust whien modifies consideradly the flying seucer- concept.
sunpvort of
vertical tar
Je
POA) whee
EV GTT ep wow ere ©
SBBERT SCOVILLE, - _
Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence ; _
Enclosure: G0-B-90229 Report 8
SE54] | -
See aan oa ce em
tater ee or eteey
’
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
: Comments on 00-B-90229, Sighting of
Unconventional Aircraft
‘SUBJECT
‘1. The distance and lighting conditions under which the
source sighted the unusual object would nake it extremely difficult
to determine just what was being seen. In some degree, the -
description fits a vertical-teke-off eireraft or a missile or
aircraft lawiched from a zero length veil. The zero. length launcking
- eould mast-certainly be acconplisned only with a rocket which would
produce & lerge flame and smoke which would have been very noticeable. —
‘the spiraling of the ooject as it left”
. the launcher does not fit very
well with a vertical take-off aircraft.
given in the referenced,
2, The very small anount of details”
‘the ooject sighted. It.
report does not permit an ideatification or
does, however, tend to indicate. that it was not a "lying saucer".
-—Jn-1954, the Scientific Advisory Board to the Chief of Staff, USAF;
appointed an ead hoe committee of three scientists to eveluate _ ot :
project "Y". ‘ne committee found that several factors.had beea
overlooked or minimized in the
ir develcoment, such as payload,
dvag factors, and mechanical desi
the committee recomended against
sign problens, to such an extent that-
suovort for the project. Air Force
supvort of the vroject now is in basic
Yesearch concerned with
vertical thrust whica modifies consideradly the flying seucer_ concept.
, S20 N o>
RT SCOVILLE, Ji > Ae
w"Assistant Director
Scientific Intelligence
atts
Enclosure: = 00-B-90229. Report
Pe tng ee om yn
ehesace ete tntealny Baane sin one
S541 -
ee ee te anes oi tt Oe eeRelated files
Connected through the network
SF-2026-000762
CIA Memorandum on National Security Implications of Unidentified Flying Objects (Flying Saucers)
SF-2026-000770