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-4

Summary:

In his UFO Historical Revue historical ufology bulletin No. 1 of June 1998, U.S. ufologist Barry Greenwood reproduced several documents found in the U.S. National Archive, related to the question of the unidentified aerial phenomena reported during World War II.

He found out that such phenomena, appearing in mission report, were also sometimes mentioned on special sheet that the U.S. Army Air Forces would then put into their own official category, “Phenomena” and into a “Special binder”.

One of the examples he gave talked about events in Germany, saying that at a short distance from the target “the phenomena previously described in Consolidated FLO Report No. 201 as “a swarm of bees” was again observed.”

Now, it was reported “to be about the size of a barrel, red-brown in colour and apparently motionless.”

The report added that there “is as yet no explanation of this occurrence.”

This was said to come from a source “MA London - 66518” with a date of March 13, 1944.

Data:

Temporal data:

Date:	1944
Time:	?
Duration:	?
First known report date:	March 13, 1944
Reporting delay:	Days, months.

Geographical data:

Country:	Germany
State/Department:
City or place:

Witnesses data:

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

Ufology data:

Reporting channel:	Official military report of "phenomena."
Visibility conditions:	?
UFO observed:	Yes.
UFO arrival observed:	?
UFO departure observed:	?
UFO action:	Motionless.
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.
Reliability 1-3:	2
Strangeness 1-3:	2
ACUFO:	Unidentified, 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

A short distance from the target the phenomena previously described in Consolidated FLO Report No. 201 as “a swarm of bees” was again observed. It was reported to be about the size of a barrel, red-brown in colour and apparently motionless. There is as yet no explanation of this occurrence.

SOURCE: MA London -66518 - 13 Mar '44 - filed 9815 Spec Binder.

Aircraft information:

No information on the plane(s) involved is given in the only source available to date.

Discussion:

The fact that the case is located in Germany and that it dates from the beginning of 1944 implies that this was indeed an observation, or observations, by airmen in flight, since the Allied ground troops were still far from the German territory at that time.

I share Barry Greenwood's idea that it is striking and interesting to note that there was a certain “special binder” for observations of “phenomena” including this one, assessed as without explanation.

As for the case described here, I do not understand at all how an assessment could have been made if this was all that was known about this observation.

Indeed, how can what had been described as resembling “a swarm of bees” in one case be considered the same phenomenon observed again when it would now be described as the size of a barrel, red-brown in color and apparently motionless? For me, this is all just totally confused.

Ultimately, the new observation could have been that of a tethered balloon. But how could this be classified as an unidentified phenomenon? I think that other previous document given as source in this one would perhaps help to understand more clearly what this was all about.

Evaluation:

Unidentified, insufficient information.

Sources references:

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

[flo1] ? Consolidated Flak Liaison Officer Report No. 201, U.S. Army Air Forces, 1944.
[bgd1] * UFO Historical Revue, historical ufology bulletin, Barry Greenwood editor, USA, No. 1, page 9, June 1998.

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	June 25, 2024	Creation, [bgd1].
1.0	Patrick Gross	June 25, 2024	First published.

This page was last updated on June 25, 2024.