ACUFO indexHome 

Cette page en françaisCliquez!

ACUFO:

ACUFO is my comprehensive catalog of cases of encounters between aircraft and UFOs, whether they are “explained” or “unexplained”.

The ACUFO catalog is made of case files with a case number, summary, quantitative information (date, location, number of witnesses...), classifications, all sources mentioning the case with their references, a discussion of the case in order to evaluate its causes, and a history of the changes made to the file.

◀ Previous case Next case ▶

Germany, in 1944:

Case number:

ACUFO-1944-00-00-GERMANY-5

Summary:

In his June 1998 UFO Historical Revue historical ufology bulletin, U.S. ufologist Barry Greenwood explained that he hound out in the U.S. National Archive that some “Foo Fighter-Type” reports by airmen of the U.S. Army Air Forces during WWII had been put in a special “Phenomena” file.

Greenwood provided several examples, including this one:

SECRET

6535 (R) Phenomena

GERMANY

Phenomena. Reference Consolidated F.L.O. Report No. 192 page 1, last para.

Investigation by technical authorities suggests that the object described as “about the size of a Thunderbolt aircraft” was probably a jet-propelled fighter.

Erratum. Reference Consolidated F.L.O. report No. 201. Phenomena, para 2. It has now be determined after further interrogation of aircrew that the “pale blue streamers, 40 ft. in length” had no connection with the “two particularly large bursts”. The latter are thought to have been possibly “scarecrow” flares, while the “streamers”, which were seen a considerable time later, may have been smoke trails from ground fired “rockets”.

SOURCE: MA London - 66205 - 2 March 1944 - filed 9815 Spec. Binder.

Data:

Temporal data:

Date: 1944
Time: ?
Duration: ?
First known report date: March 2, 1944
Reporting delay: Hours, weeks.

Geographical data:

Country: USA
State/Department:
City or place: Germany

Witnesses data:

Number of alleged witnesses: ?
Number of known witnesses: ?
Number of named witnesses: 0

Ufology data:

Reporting channel: Intelligence Summary report.
Visibility conditions: ?
UFO observed: Yes.
UFO arrival observed: ?
UFO departure observed: ?
UFO action: ?
Witnesses action:
Photographs: No.
Sketch(s) by witness(es): No.
Sketch(es) approved by witness(es): No.
Witness(es) feelings: ?
Witnesses interpretation: ?

Classifications:

Sensors: [X] Visual: ?
[ ] Airborne radar:
[ ] Directional ground radar:
[ ] Height finder ground radar:
[ ] Photo:
[ ] Film/video:
[ ] EM Effects:
[ ] Failures:
[ ] Damages:
Hynek: ?
Armed / unarmed: Armed, machine guns.
Reliability 1-3: 3
Strangeness 1-3: 1
ACUFO: Totally insufficient information.

Sources:

[Ref. bgd1:] BARRY GREENWOOD - "UFO HISTORICAL REVUE":

Foo Fighter-Type Reports Classified As “Phenomena”

It is interesting to note that in the days prior to the influx of flying saucer reports beginning in 1947, the Army Air Force of World War II managed to slot peculiar aerial reports into their own official category: “Phenomena.” How do we know this? Attached to some of the mission reports during evening activities were brief sheets making particular mention of unusual features arising from those missions. Those reports went into special files as noted on the sheets for further study. Some samples:

...

SECRET

6535 (R) Phenomena

GERMANY

Phenomena. Reference Consolidated F.L.O. Report No. 192 page 1, last para.

Investigation by technical authorities suggests that the object described as “about the size of a Thunderbolt aircraft” was probably a jet-propelled fighter.

Erratum. Reference Consolidated F.L.O. report No. 201. Phenomena, para 2. It has now be determined after further interrogation of aircrew that the “pale blue streamers, 40 ft. in length” had no connection with the “two particularly large bursts”. The latter are thought to have been possibly “scarecrow” flares, while the “streamers”, which were seen a considerable time later, may have been smoke trails from ground fired “rockets”.

SOURCE: MA London - 66205 - 2 March 1944 - filed 9815 Spec. Binder.

Scan.

Aircraft information:

There is no information available for now about the planes involved in this case, except that they were U.S. Army Air Forces military planes.

Discussion:

Map.

German “Scarecrow” flares

Allied airmen, during raids over Germany, saw phenomena looking like flares, sometimes exploding, and thought that the Germans were using special flares designed to look like aircraft falling in flames and distract aircrews of the attacking force. These flares were nicknames “Scarecrow” by the Allied.

After World War II, it was established that the so-called “Scarecrow flares” did not exist. The explosions were actually Allied aircraft being shot down by German night fighters. In many cases, the belief in the scarecrow flare was genuine, and some Historians claim that the “Scarecrow flares” interpretation was perpetuated to reassure aircrews rather than acknowledge the number of aircraft being lost.

German ground-to-air rockets

Some “skeptic” ufologists claim that the German has used during WWII a guided supersonic surface-to-air missile called “Wasserfall”. Some “skeptic” explained one of the other so-called “Foo-Fighter photograph” of WWI as photo of this missile in operation.

Whereas the “Wasserfall Ferngelenkte FlaRakete” (“Waterfall remote-controlled anti-aircraft rocket”) was indeed a German project of remote-controlled ground-to-air anti-aircraft rocket, by the Flak-Versuchskommando Nord, at the Peenemünde base, development was not completed before the end of the war and it was not used operationally.

Other ground-to-air German guided missiles were:

Lastly, there was also one air-to-air guided German missile project, the Ruhrstahl Ru 344 X-4 or Ruhrstahl-Kramer RK 344. It was a wire-guided air-to-air missile. But it did not see operational service.

The case:

It is totally impossible to me to assess either the “pale blue stramers, 40 ft. in length”, or the “two particularly large bursts”, or the object “about the size of a Thunderbolt aircraft” because the information in the report is totally insufficient.

There is no detailed description, no duration, we do not know whether this was by way or night, we do not know when and where it happened.

Obviously, the available report is an evaluation of data from previous reports which are not available so far; it they become available, maybe all this will be explainable one way or another.

Evaluation:

Totally insufficient information.

Sources references:

* = Source is available to me.
? = Source I am told about but could not get so far. Help needed.

File history:

Authoring:

Main author: Patrick Gross
Contributors: None
Reviewers: None
Editor: Patrick Gross

Changes history:

Version: Create/changed by: Date: Description:
0.1 Patrick Gross July 5, 2024 Creation, [bgd1].
1.0 Patrick Gross July 5, 2024 First published.

HTML5 validation



 Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home
This page was last updated on July 5, 2024.