UFOs Northwest Homepage
History of UFOs
Sighting Reports
Audio Clips
Close Encounters
Pilot Sightings
Report a Sighting
UFO Events
UFO Organizations
Important Links
About Us
Contact Us

Sighting Reports Previous to 1990

Mixed Messages From the Air Force Project Bluebook
(Kenneth Arnold Disk Sightings)
 - Mt. Rainier, WA - June 24, 1947 -

The Air Force's only official investigation of UFOs was titled "Project Bluebook."  This project began in 1948 and ended in 1969.  (The project was not originally called Bluebook.  In 1948 the project was called "Project Sign" and later became "Project Grudge" before the name was changed to Bluebook in 1952.)  One of the several cases that Project Bluebook investigated in 1947 was the Kenneth Arnold sighting in which nine flying disks were sighted near Mt. Rainier, Washington on June 24, 1947.  I found several pages in the Bluebook archives pertaining to the Arnold sighting.  Officially Bluebook explained Arnold's sightings as "mirages."  However, one major discrepancy was found in the Bluebook archives:  Kenneth Arnold said that the disks were flying southward from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams.  The Bluebook archive contained Arnold's written statement. (Stating that the disks were moving towards the south from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams.)
 Another page in the Kenneth Arnold report in the Bluebook archives said that disks were moving westward.  This page totally contradicts the part of the report which states that the disks were moving southward.


Why would Project Bluebook contain errors to the point where one really would not know what the report concludes?  Were the disks moving southward?  Obviously that would be true based on Kenneth Arnold's observations.  (This is consistent with the direction that he was flying and his statement that the disks were moving from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams.  Mt. Adams is almost directly south of Mt. Rainier.)  Did the investigators in Bluebook have reason to disagree with Arnold's observation of the direction of movement?  Was the page in the report a "glaring error?"  What are we to conclude from the report?  With these ambiguities can we trust any of the investigations of Bluebook?  This is the not the only case containing inconsistencies.  (More will be discussed in additional reports on this web site.)