PROJECT BLUE BOOK

tee

3. DATE-TIME GROUP

5. PHOTOS

PROJECT 10073 RECORD CARD
2. LOCATION

ss vals wee)
Ce ah Ch

te « ss

——_—————

i. TYPE OF OBSERVATION
O Ground- Vi sucl

0 Air Visual

DO Ground-Rodar

O Air-Intercap? Roder

12. CONCLUSIONS

Was Balloon
Probably Galioon
Possibly Balloon

Wos Aivcraft
Probably Aircraft
Possibly Aircroft

8. SOURCE Was Astronomical
“0 Yes Civilian Probably Astronomical
0 Noe <n ile Possibly Astronomico
.
— eeeneeeceaseneneerertnstayes ——<———— at noar
7. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 3. NUMBER OF OBJECTS | 9 COURSE Other : ,
: Insufficient Data for Evaluation
One Unknown
—_ — LL LL LLL LLL LLL LO —_———— —
10. BRIEF SUMMARY OF SIGHTING |11. COMMENTS
3 photos received at ATIC of supposed Pictures sent to photo en
Flying ssucer. The object Was GMali @
at close rahge. They wer
result of iong exposur:
or indoor exposures with
from radically different
either of which would pr
° ~~
object being a tiying 5s:
was a deliberate attempt
Re , PUe i dent is y © t 3 7 he
——— nna —_—

ATIC FORM 329 (REV 26 SEP 52)

pe WE aed | hee te

ea De Bolas

+
ee ee ee a jalan AGH g me mo

OFFICIAL FILE COPY

(D-3/Majer Priend/y1/69216

\nalysis of Photographs (@aMEB, ir.) 5 act 196
Ee.

dq USAF (SAFOI-3c - Major Coleman)

1. The attached photographs have been examined by the FTD vhoto-
analysis division who were unable to identify she odject pictured.

2. The analysts concluded, however, that the object was small,
being pactographed at close range. They further concluded that the
paotcgraphs resulted from either a long outdoor exposure or were
indocr exposures due to the fact that the light apparently cane
from radically different angles.

3- it is the analysts opinion that the photogravhs are a ieliberate |
attempt to perpetuate 2 hoax..

fr) j
j Al Sil wtb,
: Y sDwaRD 3. wom 7, i “a
| ~ Colenel, USAP Fae eh
Deputy ror Science ~
| and Components

COORDINATION: TD-E CX> 4

-——

; j t
;
‘
ee ee te ee Le ee en ae ee ee ee

;
:
’
5

>
e,
} We >
>, fs
a ‘Le - I
3 .¢ ?. Pi ‘
7, F ww 2

;
;

HEADQUARTERS

’ FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
ad “—- ~ * ~ - - - ; “ al . -
AIR FORGE SYSTEMS COMMAND =
UNITEO STATES AIR FORCE
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIP FORCE Batt. Ont
REPLY TO

TIN OF: -B/Major Friend .

suesect: Analysis of Photographs (Qi ) ee

ro: HQ USAF (SAFOI-3c - Major Coleman)

1. The attached photographs have been examined by the FTD photo-
analysis division who were unable to identify the object pictured.

2. The analysts concluded, however, that the object was small,
being photographed at close range. They further concluded that the
photographs resulted from either a long outdoor exposure or were
indoor exposures due to the fact that the light apparently caine
from radically different angles.

3- it is the analysts opinion that the photographs are a deliberate

at hempt fata RE & hoax.
c~ Ye =e
aw F

7oweSD H. WYNN 2 Atchs
Colonel, USAF l. Ltr 7 @Qenins
Deputy for Science 2. Envelope containing 3
end Components photographs.
CAN ME Tai = te ——

:

» eaten.

De Re Al od nt li a | ye

T)-2/ Major Friend

Analysis of Photographs 3 ee .

Gq USAF (SAFOI-3¢ - Major Coleman)

. The attached photograpas have been cxamined by the FID photo-

}
analysis division who were unable to identiry the object pictured.

.

2. The analysts concluded, however, that the object was small,
being photographed at close range. They further concluded that the
photographs resulted from either a long outdoor exposure or were
imioor exposures due to the fact that the light apparently cane
from radically diiferent angles.

3. it is the analysts coinion that the photographs are a deliberate
absempt to perpetuate a hoax.

EDWARD H. Wy 2 Atcnds

-

sOlonel, USAP l. ltr toe
Devuty Tor Sciences 2. Unvelove containing 3
and Components photographs,

ee