Reported observations: April 1947. Surviving study: 10 December 1948. The official 2026 catalogue labels DOW-UAP-D094 as 1949 and lists a later date; those labels are not the incident date. Relevant original pages reviewed 13 November 2026.
An observation made during ordinary work
Two employees of the Weather Bureau station at Richmond reportedly noticed a metallic-looking disc while carrying out pilot-balloon observations. The account survives in Appendix C of Air Intelligence Report 100-203-79, an early American intelligence assessment of unusual flying-object reports. It describes three occasions during April 1947, rather than one precisely dated encounter.
The setting matters because the observers were already looking through a theodolite as part of their work. This was not simply a distant light noticed casually from a road. At the same time, the report is a later compiled summary. It is not a complete set of original observation sheets, separate signed statements, photographs and instrument records.
What the theodolite account actually says
The summary gives fifteen seconds for one observation. It places that observation at a balloon altitude of 15,000 feet and describes a disc below the balloon that appeared substantially larger. It calls the outline something like an ellipse with a flat lower part and a rounded top, with a metallic appearance.
The other observations are associated with a figure of 27,000 feet. Those numbers belong to the report’s balloon-observation context. They should not be converted into independently measured altitudes of the unknown appearance. An angular instrument follows a direction in the sky; a distance is also needed before apparent size can establish a physical dimension.
The source says the appearance moved rapidly but that its speed could not be estimated. That qualification is important. The record does not justify adding a numerical speed, a physical acceleration or a manoeuvre that its observers did not measure. Nor does it describe occupants, a landing, radar confirmation or a recovered object.
Why the intelligence authors selected it
The study’s authors considered some reports especially worth examining because the observers had relevant training or technical experience. In the surrounding discussion they singled out Richmond as an early report that, in their judgment, was not readily dismissed as a balloon mistake or the influence of later American newspaper publicity.
That was an intelligence assessment made from the information then available. It should be reported as the authors’ reasoning, rather than as a modern experimental result. Their general discussion of possible domestic equipment, foreign technology and the need for further checking does not identify the Richmond object.
The document also gathers many unrelated sightings. Those other reports are evidence that officials were collecting accounts; they do not independently corroborate what the two Richmond employees saw. Keeping each event separate prevents the report’s length from being mistaken for the quantity of evidence about this particular observation.
The remaining gaps
The reviewed passage does not give the observers’ names, exact dates for the three observations, a complete sequence of bearings or an independently established range. It does not preserve a photograph from the instrument or a physical object that can now be examined.
The absence of those details prevents a reliable reconstruction from the summary alone. A metallic appearance is an observation about reflected light and perceived form, not a material analysis. Looking below a known balloon is a useful positional description, but it does not establish that the two objects were at the same distance.
No conventional identification is demonstrated in the pages reviewed. Equally, failure to identify an appearance from a short historical summary is not strong evidence that it had extraordinary propulsion or origin. The defensible conclusion concerns the surviving record, not a claim that every possible explanation has been ruled out.
Assessment and map reference
UKPX classifies this case as Insufficient evidence. The original document supports an unusual, instrument-assisted observation report. It does not supply enough preserved measurements to establish the nature or performance of the reported object.
The map uses a broad Richmond city reference from the U.S. Census Gazetteer. The exact 1947 observing position has not been established here. The pin is therefore neither a claimed object position nor an invitation to enter a particular property.
Sources and review scope
Primary source: the owner-supplied original DOW-UAP-D094 release PDF, Appendix C paragraph 2(a), PDF page 13 / printed page 8, with the title and surrounding discussion checked. The displayed page was visually read against its text extraction; the scan says 15,000 feet, where OCR can misread the first figure.
The public source link is a scan of the same historical Air Intelligence Report 100-203-79 hosted by NICAP. The official PURSUE catalogue at https://www.war.gov/UFO/release/ lists D094 in Release 04, 10 July 2026. That release is a later access event, not a new 1947 sighting. No claim is made that all pages or every case in the compilation were investigated afresh.