PROJECT BLUE BOOK

PROJECT 1OO73 RECORD
1. DATE · TIME GROUP 2. LOCATION
31 January 50.8N 31.1W (Atlantie)
3. SOURCE 10. CONCLUSION
Military Other (CONTRAILS)
1. NUIMBER OF OBJECTS
One
11. BRTEF SUMMARY AND AHALYSIS
N/A Cbserved a bright white flying object brail covering 15 deg
of arc. Appsared on horizon at 29o deg and disappeared
6. TYPE OF OBSERVATION over horizon at l40 deg.
Ground-Visual
7. COURSE
258 22KT
8. PHOTOS
n Yos
XNo
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
07 Yas
XNo
FORM
FTD SEP63 0-329 (TDE) ETD SEDA2 Provlous sditions of thls form may io used.
=
Il
.

PHOTO ANALYSIS REPORT 66-23 PAGE_L_OF PACES
NR _9 June 1966
DATE OF REPORT
SUBJECT UNIDENTIFIED FLYING. OBJECT
LOCATION SEATTLE, WASHINGTON DATE January.1966
PHOTOGRAPHY
AF. IR QUALITY Good
PNAS 1 print, I negative
1. PURPOSE: This report is in response to Work Order Number 66-56 from Major H. Quintanilla,
TDEW/UFO, whO asked for an analysis of a negative and print depicting an Unidentified Fiying
Object.
2. ANALYsIs: This analysis was completed jointly by the' Photo Analysis and Photo Processing
Divisions. The image on the 'n s probably not from an object on the water or between
the water and the camera. In fact, the imege does not appear to be that of any defined object.
The image could have been caused by refracted light from a small water droplet on the lens,
water condensation on the film, or an internal camera reflection. A water droplet on the lens
appears to be the most reasonable explanation of the image.
PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: APPROVED BY:
tinli a dehian Franks &. m. Peak
GERALD A. SCHEIMAN RICHARD L. CHANCE
Intelligence Research Specialist Captain, USAF 1
WILBER PRICE,
2

PHOTO ANALYSIS REPORT 66-23 PAGE⊥_ PAGES
NR
DATE OF REPORT_9 JUNe 1966
SUBJECT UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
LOCATION SEATTLE, WASHINGTON DATE January 1966
PHOTOGRAPHY
AF 12 QUALITY Good
PNRS 1 print, I negative
1. PURPOSE: This report is in response to Work Order Number 66-56 from Major H. Quintanilla,
TDEW/UFO, who asked for an negative and print depicting an Unidentified Flying
Object.
2. ANALYsIS:  This analysis was completed jointly by the Photo Analysis and Photo Processing
Divisions. The image on negative is probably not from an object on the water or between
the water and the camera. In faot, the.image does not appear to be that of any rdefined object.
The image could have been caused by refracted light from a small water droplet on the lens, caused by efracted light from a small water droplet on Che lens,
water condensation on the film, or an internal camera reflection. A water droplet on the lens water condensation on the lens
appears to be the most reasonable explanation of the image,
PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: PHOTO APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:
Linli a dehuman Linili l deheman Frank &. Me Peak Frank &. m. Peak
GERALD A. SCHEIMAN 2or 2o2 RICHARD L. CHANCE
Intelligence Research Specialist Intelligence Research Specialist Captain, USAF
Chief, Photo Analysis pipision Chief, Photo Analysis pipision
WILBER PRICE,
Director,
Photo Exploitation Mrectorate
T A
a

21
2

UNCLASSIFIED

1 2
I
-
- -.
1
H
N ". 4 1 7012
e= - S8 .
. J 2 s

D1
a
LEA 07 TMO
-
A
NO
T
REFERENCE MATERIAL:
REQUESTED BY SYMBOL PHONE
I CERTIFY THAT THIS WORK IS AUTHORIZED BY ME AND THAT IT HAS THE F FOLLOWING PRIORITY AND
DEADLINE WITHIN MY DIVISION.
PRIORITY DEADLINE SIGNATURE OF APPROVING DIVISION CHIEF DATE
ENGINEERING SUPPORT MONITOR_ ASSISTANT
FINAL WORK TO BE IN FORM OF :
ENGINEERING NOTE COMPUTATION PIREPORT DRAWING PROGRAM
WORK REQUEST APPROVED BY: DEADLINE DATE.
PRIORITY NUMBER ONE TWO THREE
WORK ORDER NUMBER
FTD FORM
SEP 64 462 Previous editions may be used.

ANALYBIS REPORT 66-23 PAGE _ OF _1_PACES
PROTO. NR
DATE OF REPORT 9 JIMS 1966
SUOJEOT. UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
LOGATION SEANTL WASHINGTON DATE January 1965
PHOTOGRAPHY
IR QUALITY Good
AF
PNAS 1 print, I negative
1. PURPOSE: This report is in response to Work Order Number 66-56 from Major H. Quinbanilla,
TDEW/UFO, who asked for an of a negative and print depioting an Unidentified Flying.
Object.
2. ANALYsIs: This analysis was ccmpleted jointly by the Photo Analysis and Photo Processing
Mivisions. The image on the negative probably not from an object on the water or betuwreen
the water and the camera. In fact, the imdge does not appear to be that of any defined object.
The image could have been caused by refracted light from a small water droplet on the lens,
water condensation on the film, or an internel camera reflection. A water droplet on the lens water condensation on the film, or an internal camera reflection. A water droplet on ths lens
appears to ba the most reasonable explanation of the image. appears to be the most reasonable explanation of the image.
PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:
ahiiiilr Frank &. Me Rak Frank &. m Ral
GERALD A. SCHEIMAN 22 22 RICHARD L. CHANCE
Intelligence Research Specialist Captain, USAF
Chief, Photo Analysis Division
WILBER PRICE, JR. WILBER PRICE, JR
Director, Director,
Photo Eploitation Directorate
FTD A-862 FOR' 132
A
.

O ANALYSIS 66-23 PAGE
NR June 1966
DATE OF REPORT
SUBJECT UNIDENTIFIED FLYING'OBJECT
LOCATION SE WASHINGTON DATE January 1966
PHOTOGRAPHY
AF IR QUALITY Good
PNRB print, I negative
1, PURPosE: This report is in response to Work Order Number 66-56 from Major H. Quintanilla,
TDEW/Uro, who asked for an analysis of a negative and print depicting an Unidentified Flying
Object.
2, ANALysis: This analysis was completed jointly by the Photo Analysis and Photo Processing
Divisions. The image on the negative-is probably not from an object on the Water or between
the water and the camera. In fact, the-imige does not appear to be that of any defined objeet.
The image could have been caused by refracted light fron a small water droplet on the lens, The image coild have been c aused oy refracted iight Iron a small water droplet on tne lens,
water condensation on the film, or an internal camera refleotion. A water droplat on ths lens water condensation on the film, or an internal camera refleotion.  A water droplet on ths lens
appears to be the most reasonable axplanation of the image.
PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: APPROVED BY:
phiinidr ahe67id Frank E. Me Riak Frank &. Me Riak
GERALD A. SCHEMAN GERALD A. SCHEEAN For For RICHARD L. CHANCE
Intelligence Research Specialist Captain, USAF Ceptein, USAF
Chief, Photo Analysjs Division Chief, Photo Analysjs pivision
WILBER PRICE, JR.
Director, Dimonton
Photo Exploitation Directorate
I
=
1

a 21500,8 wald hike to ienver
highitinge 19650 DeAuted
gee
a R
Iouid till of a tonter eparal, on a
gyrecpe f Some tomae thy uonds
in a Daid, af othertome
other then oy
42
VR
0

UNCLASSIFIED
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
STAFF MESSAGE BRANCH
INCOMING MESSAGE
AF IN: 68863 (1 Feb 66) E/fhe
ACTION: NIN-7
INFO : XOP-1, XOPX-2, SAF-OS-3, DIA-1 (15)
SMB A 01DZ CZCHQA3 09ZCVJX82 0
CO RUEAHQ
DE RUTHBS 732 0312313
ZNR UUUUU
0 312245Z JAN 66
FM NAF LAJES
TO RUEAHQ/CSAF USAF
RUWGALB/CINCNORAD RUWGALB/CINCNORAD
RUCKOT/COMASWFORLANT RUCKOT/COMASWFORLANT a
RUE GUH/ COMEAST SE AFRON RUE GUH/COMEAST SE AFRON
RCCPNH/CANA IRDEF RCCPNH/CANA IRDEF
RCEOC/CANMARCOM
BT
FOLLOWING INTERCEPTED OVER 454 KCS AT 31/23 13Z FOLLOWING INTERCEPTED OVER 454 KCS AT 31/23 13Z
AMERICAN COMA DER WJNB MERINT 3 12210Z 5 0. 8N 3 1. 7W COURSE
258 22KT OBSERVED BRIGHT WHITE FLYING OBJECT TRAIL COVERING 15
DEGREES OF ARC APPEARED ON HORIZON AT 290 DEGS DISAPPEARED OVER
HORIZON AT 140 DEGS VISIBILITY EXCELLENT WIND NW/5 BT MASTER
BT
NNNN NOTE: ADVANCE COPY DELIVERED TO XOPX.
AFHO 1AN65 FOPM 0-309C UNCLASSIFIED

N2
mede dereiad cre thipe oer the aia
tie loape fro the N'e ESo yoo. Dn the
Iad bops there sne e chond, wth a dik
on it liken to a daybime full mnove,
traveling
Justir ty otjiel tii the sin ithe dun
dannd. and trind ked AEale
wide, and the
jrogetie

Jet 10, 1966, Thuk. He Clanla
Jans thite Clonde all onee the iki.
fuel boke the one fron the mo .
(Hhs is why Iay gu fum the D
ghided down fao the diseation g
Kigel, and
(n the teitterfly Choster Cud a
The tody part
piints south to Ho. 1. ≠.
1!

, 11
tiyong to 2ach the tos oy The 224
txvg tack and forth,&
teaching to
Bgech, high, Gasng mnte, n Red
Rid light feaching
tighkieat tent ieed, and tnished
behind it.

SE < 11
Hhe sticking semed "
theie
didnt ssen mcoel o thike
ff wend in mg
down. Some 3 au 4 Hind tact to
the yaid) 8:4e w an sther I dke thad

to abuse the dog
printepel to he
mg
te Cnrrep lome theie youthi sndes20
Andionl2 thik ipe o mot gost a
- aTe

fm Site Lecaua idishaturbi the
Idated sur facteng.
Mf Hleon Caly
1. Mained Bonce Ceuft Cnter
8an 10 1966
21 5 B.Aneriean Acadng of Scinces
and, thie Rife sayle te found amangi
the many ithere siee Ree.
200 Cloen
TE

Now De0. 29, 1966 - my diny
Gay2 an jict paceed, red. light
tufocale-
H ua Gn.
the tottom black 6 50

entea
Os d -
Fnofin 222c1
iidinge S rposted the hes 2yk
a0
ot

3 Flying Objeci
licemen A. D. Duncan and DAILAS (UP! Dailas po-
they warched an unidelmed B. T. Gaiindo reported (today
skv for more than two hours flying objeet in the Snortheast
beiore dawn.)
was emitting a white light. The officers said the object
zlowed somewhat like a lamnp with the light alternately get-
the object moved horizontally tig bright and dim. They said
Sie moved vertieaily. They said it at times. but most of the fime
cial airliner. looked larger than a commer-i
tmmeloing a a sen reported they Police at suburbar Richard-
some cails about a similar ob- received
ou bocal paper, tte ject, but they reported that Col- Hns Radio Co.- had a- helicopter
20 Clodi te fracking antenna and attributed in the air at the time- testing a
the the cails to the source. The
an Collins helicopter. however, landed at 12:39 a.m. v
of KBoX. reported he saw a A radio nawsman, Glen Sims
The datie lun night with two red lights, one white ohject just before mid-
/2na031,1966,8: snid it emitted a whining noise. constant and one blinking. He
that time. The helicopter was airbone at
Mar. 31, 1966, She, Lodele
Oprik 1, 19bb, di 2h befoi daon, 9 m.

UNCLAS
"OLLOWING INTERCEPTED OVER 454 KCS AT 31/2313Z
AMERICAN COMMANDER WJNB MERINT 312210Z. 50.8N 31.1W C0URSE
OBJECT AIL COVERING 15
OESREES OF ARC APPEARED D1SA2PS1RE
IOAIZON AT. 14O DEGS VIS HINO NHYOBT MHASTER
Original transmission not identified in SMh files.
1
04751
COSARD-CSA
PADE TIME OF RECEIPT DATE THE GROUP
2 0136Z 01 FE3 312249Z JAN GS

1, 16an62
196.6
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIVISION (AFSC) ②
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE. OHIO 4O433
REMLY TO
ATTN OF: TDPT/UFO
BUSJECT: UFO Observation
TO:
Dayton, hio 45401
Reference your recent unidentified flying object sighting which
you reported to the Air Force. The information which we have
received is not sufficient for a scientific investigation. Request
you complete the attached AF Form ll7 and return it in the self-
addressed envelope. Thank you for reporting your observation to
the Air Force.
JAMES C. MANATT, COlOnel, USAF 1 Atch
Director of Production AF Form 117
4
-
t
IE
E1
A

would you please complete the attached AF Form 1i
in the envelope provided. If you were not a witness to this
sighting, would you please make a statement to this effect on the
attached form. The information which you provide will be used in
evaluating this observation. Thank you for your assistance in this 4
matter.
WECTOR OT NILLA, Jr, Major, USAF 1 Atch
Chief, Aeri henomena Office AF Form 1l7 w/envelope
Aerospace Technologies Division
Production Directorate
T
N

BOB Nr 21-R258
SIGHTING OF UNIDENTIFIED PHENOMENA QUESTIONNAIRE
THHS QUESTIONNURE HAS BEEN PREPARED SO THAT YOU CAN GIVE THE U.S AIR FORCE AS MUCH INFORMATION VE OBSERVED. PLEASE TRY TO
A3 CONCERNING TH FIED PHENOMENON THAT YOU ED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES
ANSVE UNFORMAIION YOU GIVE VTLL R ITS OR CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT
YOUR
ATTACH SECURELY TO TIHIS FORM OR ANNOTATE FITH YOUR NAME FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
1. WHEN DID YOU SEE THE PHENOMENON!
DAY. MONTH
2 WHAT TIME DID YOU FIRST SIGHT THE PHENOMENONT A.H. SP.a.
HOUR MINUTES
3. WHAT TIWE DID YOU LAST SIGHT THE PHENOMENON? A.M.. DP.M.
HOUR MINUTES
(DAYLIGHE SAVINGS STANDARD
4.TIME/ZONE EPACIFIC OTHER
CEASTERN CENTRAL MOUNTAIN
S. TWHEME WVERE YOU NHEN YOU SAW THE PHENOMENONT IF IN CITY. GIVE THE NEAREST STREET ADDRESS AND INDICATE ON
A HANO DRAWN MAP WHERE YOU WERE STANDING WITH REPERENCE TO THE ADDRESS. IF IN THE COUNTRY, IDENTIFY TNE
HIGHWAY YOU WERE.ON OR NEAR AND TRY TO FIX A DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM SOME RECOSNIZABLE LANDNARK.
t
S. IMAGINE YOU ARE AT THE POINT SHOWN IN THE SKETCH. PLAGE AN TA" CN THE CURVED LINE TO SHOW HOW HIGH THE S. IMAGINE YOU ARE AT THE POINT SHOWN IN THE SKETCH. PLAGE AN TA" CN THE CURVED LINE TO SHOW NOW HIGH THE
PHENOUENCN WAS ABOVE THE HORIZON, OR SKYLINE, WHEH FIAST SEEN. PLACE AB° ON THE SAME CURVEO LINE TO PHENCUENON WAS ABOVE THE HORIZON, OR SKVLINE, WHEH FIRST SEEN. PLACE A S' ON THE SAME CURVEO LINE TO
SHOW HOW HIGH ABOVE THE HORIZON THE PHSNOMENON WAS WHEN LAST SEEN.
90
-
A
OBSERVEn
FO7N 117
AUG 27

GA. NOW IMAGINE YQU ARE ATTHE CENTER OF THE COMPASS ROSE. PLACE AN *A* ON THE COMPASS TO INDICATE THE
DIRECTION TO THE PHENOMENON WHEN FIRST SEEN. PLACE A *B° ON THE COMPASS TO IHDICATE THE DIRICTION TO
THE PHENOMZNON WHEN LAST SEEN.
NNW NNE
NW NE
WNW ENE
WSW ESE
SW SE
SSW SGE
7. IN THE SKETCH BELOW, PLACE AN *A* AT THE POSITION OF THE PHENOMENON WHEN FIRST SEEN, AND A *B" AT THE
POSITION OF THE PHENOMENON WHEN LAST SEEN. CONNECT THE *A AND *B* WITH A LINE TO APPROXIMATE THE
MOVEMENT OF THE PHENOMENON BETWEEN *A° AND B. THAT IS, SCHEMATICALLY SHOW WHETHER THE MOVENENT
APPEAREO TO BE STRAIGHT, CURVED OR ZIG-ZAG. REFER TO SMALLER SKETCH AS AN SXAMPLE OF HOW TO COMPLETE
THE LARGER SKETCH.
PAGEZOFD PAGES
.

3. WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU SAW THE PHENOMENON? (ChECk aPPTOPRaM: bOCKS.)
OUTDOORS IN BUSINESS SEGTION OF CITY
IN SUILOING IN RESIDENTIAL SECTION OF CITY
IN CAR A3 DRIVER AS PASSENGER IN OPEN COUNTRYSIDE
IN 90AT NEAR AIRFIELD
IN AIRPLANE AS PILOT AS PASSENGER FLYING OVER CITY
OTHER ELYING OVER OPEN COUNTRY
OTHER
A. IF YOU WERE IN A VEHICLE, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
WHAT DIRECTION WERE YOU MOVING? HOW FAST WERE YOU MGVING?
NORTH EAST
SOUTH WEST DID YOU STOP ANYTIME WHILE EISERVING THO
PHENOMENON?
NORTHEAST SOUTHEAST
NORTHWEST SOUTHWEST YES NO
EXPLAIN WHETHER SUCH MOVEMENT EFFECTS YOUR SXETCHES IN ITEMS 5 AND G.
DESCRISE TYPE OF VEHICLE YOU WERE IN AND TYPE OF ROAD, TERRAIN OR BODY OF WATERYOU TRAVERSEO DURING
THE SIGHTING. STATE WHETHER WINDOWS OR CONVERTISLE TOP WERE UP OR DOWN.
HOW MUCH OTHER TRAFFIC WAS THERE?
DID YOU NOTICE ANY AIRPLANES? 0 YES NO. IF *YES,* DESCRIBE WHEN THEY WERE IN SIGHT RELATIVE TO THE TIME
OF SIGHTING THE PHENOMENON AND WHERE THEY WERE IN THE SKY RELATIVE TO THE POSITION OF THE PHENOMENON.
9. HOW LONG WAS THE PHENOMENON IN SIGHT?
LENGTH OF TIME CERTAIN OF TIME CERTAIN OF TIME NOT VERY SURE
FAIRLY CERTAIN JUST A GUESS JUST A GUESS
HOW WAS TIME HOW WAS TIME DETERMINED?
WAS THE PHENOMENON IN SIGHT CONTINUOUSLY? YES NO. IF "NO,"INDICATE WHETHER THIS IS DUE TO YOUR NO. IF "NO," INDICATE WHETHER THIS IS DUE.TO YOUR
MOVEMENT OR THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PHENOMENON, ANO DESCRIBE SUCH MOVEMENT OR BEHAVIOR. INDICATE OISAP- MOVEMENT OR THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PHENOMENON, AND DESCRIBE SUCH MOVEMENT OR BEHAVIOR. INOICATE OISAP-
PEAHANCES ON PREVIOUS SKETCHES. PEAHANCES ON PREVIOUS SXETCHES.
will C
E
PAGE3OF9 PAGES
4

TO. IF THERE WERE NORE THAN ONE PHENOMENON, HOW MAMY WERE THERE? DRAW A PICTURE TO SHOW HOW THEY WERE
ARRANGED. DID THIS ARRANGEMENT CHANGE DURING THE SIGHTING?
CoNDiTiONs(Check appropriate biocks.)
SKY 3. WEATHER
DAY CUMULUS CLOUCS(LoW flufy) FOG OR MIST
TWILIGHT CIRaus CLouDs (High fleecy or Herring- MEAVY RAIN
NIGHT hone) LIGHT RAIN OR ORIZZLE
CLEAR NIMBUS CLOUDS(RaiN) HAIL
PARTL Y CLOUDY CUMULONIMSUS CLOUDS SHOW ORSLEET
COMPLETELY OVERCAST (Thanderstorms) UNKNOWN
HAZE OR SHOG NOME OF THE ABOVE
C.IF THE SIGHTING WAS AT TWILIGHT OR NIGHT, WHAT DID YOU NOTICE ABOUT THE STARS ANO MOON?
(1) STARS (2) MOON
1 NONE BRIGHT MOONLIGHT NO NOONLIOHT
A FEW MOON WITH HALO UNKNOWN
MANY MOON HIDDEN BY CLOUDS
UNKNOWN PARTIAL(New or quarter)
O. IF SIGHTING WAS IN DAYLIGHT, WAS THE SUN VISIBLE? YES NO. *YES, WHERE WAS THE SUN AS YOU FACED
THE PHENOMENON?
IN FRONT OF YOU TO YOUR RIGHT OVERHEAD(NEOR nOON
IN BACK OF YOU TO YOUR LEFT UNKNOWN
E. SPECIFY THE MAJOR SOURCE OF ILLUMINATION PRESENT OURING THE SIGHTING, SUCH AS THE SUN, HEAOLIGHTS OR
STREET LAMP, ETC. FOR TERRESTRIAL ILLUMINATION, SPECIFY DISTANCE TO LIGHT SOURCE.
I2. GIVE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PHENOMENON, INDICATING WHETHER IT APPEARED DARK OR LIGHT, WHETHER IT
REFLECTEO LIGHT OR WAS SELF-LUMINOUS ANO WMAT COLORS YOU NOTICED. DESCRIBE YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHETHER
IT WAS SOLIO OR TRANSPARENT, WHETHER EOGES WERE SHARP OR FUZZY. DESCRIBE THE SMAPE OR INDICATE IF IT
APPEARED AS A POINT OF LIGHT. INDICATE COMPARISONS WITH OTHER OBSERVED OBJECTS, LIKE STARS, A LIGHT OR
OTHER OBJECT IN YOUR FIELD OF VIEW.
PAGEAOFSPAGES

A. HOW DID IT FINALLY DISAPPEAR?
S. DID THE PHENOMENON MOVE BEHIND OR IN FRONT OF SONETHING, LIKE A CLOUD, TREE, OR BUILDING AT ANY TIMET
ESYES COHO.IF•YES,DESCRIBE.
CO
PAGESOFRPAGES

1S. DRAW A PICTURE THAT WILL SHOW THE SHAPE OF THE PHENOMENON. INCLUDE ANO LABEL ANY DETAILS THAT MIGHT
HAVE APPEARED AS WINGS OR PROTRUSIONS, AND INDICATE EXHAUST OR VAPOR TRAILS. INDICATE BY AN ARROW THE
DIRECTION THE PHENOMENON WAS MOVING.
.
.
IS. WHAT WAS THE ANGULAR SIZE? HOLD A MATCH AT ARM'S LENGTH IN FRONT OF A KNOWN O3JECT, SUCH AS A STREET
LAMP OR THE MOON. NOTE HOW MUCH OF THE OBJSCT IS COVERED BY THE HEAD OF THE MATCH. NOW IF YOU HAD
BEEN ASLE TO PERFORM THIS EXPERIMENT AT THE TIME OF THE SIGHTING, ESTIMATE WMAT FRACTION OF THE TO PSREORM THIS EXPSRIMENT AT THE TIME OF THE SIGHTING. ESTIMATE WHATFRACTIONOFTHE
PHENOMENON WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED SY THE MATCH HEAD.
PAGE 6 OF9 PAGES
.

17. DID YOU OBSERVE THE PHEHOMENON THROUGH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? INCLUGE INFORMATION OH MOOEL.
TYPE, FILTER. LENS PRESCRIPTION OR OTHER APPLICAALE DATA.
EYEGLASSES CAVERA VIEWER
SUNGLASSES BINDCULARS
WINOSHIELD TELESCOPE
SIDE WINGOW OF VEHICLE THEODOLITE.
WINGDWPANE OTHER
A. YOU ORDINARILY WEAR GLASSES? 0 TES NO B. DO YOU USE READING GLASSEST 7YES
16. WHAT WAS YOUR IMPRESSION OF THE SPEED OE TMS 1O. WHAT YAS YOUR IHPRESSHOM OF THE DISTANCE OE THE
PHENOMENON? GIVE ESTIMATE OP SPEED PHENOMENON? GIVE ESTIMATE OF DISTANCE.
2O: IN ORDER THAT WE MAY OBTAIN AS CLEAR A PICTURE AS POSSIBLE OF WHAT YOU SAW, DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS
A COMMON OSJECT OR OBJECTS WHICH, WHEH PLACED IN THE SKY SIMILAR TO WHERE YOU NOTEO THE PHENOMENON.
WOULD SEAR SOME RESEMBLANCE TO WHAT YOU SAW. DESCRIBE SIMILARITIES ANO DIFFERENCES BETNEEN THE
COMMON OBJECT ANO WHAT YOU SAW.
Z1. DID VOU NOTICE ANY ODOR, NOISE, OR HEAT EMANATING FROM TME PHENOMENON ON ANY EFFECT ON YOURSELF,
ANIMALSOR MACHINERY IN THE VICINITY?-TYES: NO. IF ANIMALS OR MACHINERY IN THE VICINITY?-TYES: -NO. IF*YES,"DESCRIAE. "YES, DESCRIAE.
OID THE PHENOMENON CISTURS THE GROUND OR LEAVE ANY PHYSICAL EVIOENCE. YES NO.
IF YES DESCRISE.
PAGET OFSPAGES

camera rerlection. A water droplet on-the lens appears to be the BII
most reasonable explanation or the image..
Sincerely,
- 4
s0 -
HECTOR QUINTANILLA, Jr, Ma.jOr, USAF 1 Atch
Chief, Froject Blue Book Negative with 2 prints
2

22. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS OR A SIMILAR PHENOMENON BEFORE? YES INO. VE GATE AND
LOCATION.
2?. WAS ANYONE WITH YOU AT THE TIME YOU SAW THE PHENOMENON? NIYES ]NO. IF "YES,"DIO THEY SEE IT TOO?
CYES CINO.
A. LIST THEIR NAMES AND ADORESSES
Ditrt
24. GIVE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF
LAST NAME, FIRST NAMEYMIDDLE NA
ADDRESS(STEE,
TELEPHONE (Area code and number)
MALE FEMALE
INDICATE CLUDING OCCUPATION AND ANY EXPERIENCE WHICH MAY BE PERTINEYT.
.
-
wal
6
ZS. WHEN AND TO WHOM DID YOU REPORT TMALYOU MAD SIGNTED TWIS PHENOMENCN?
HAME DAY... MONTH YEAR
2S. OATE YOU COMPLETED THIS OUESTIONNAIAS.
DAY MONTH. YEAR
PAGESOP O PAGES

2 FEBRUARY 1966 SIGHTINGS
DATE LOCATION OBSERVER EVALUATION
Morocco Civilian Astro (METEOR)
DuLuth,Minnesota Astro (MARS)
SaLisbury, North Carolina UNIDENTIFIED
Atlanta, Georgia InsufficientData
Houston, Texas Other (CONFLICTING DA .
Nederland, Texas UNIDENTIFIED
Tanca, Florida. Astro (STARS/PLANETS)
Duson,-Louisiana Kircraft
15-16 Greenville, Ohio Astro (MOON)
16 Brunswick Naval. Air Station, Maine Civilian, Mlitary L. Astro (JUPITER)
2. -Insufficient Data
Centerville, Ohio AStrO (VENUS)
19.5ON 170.C0E (Pac1fic) Pan Am Clipper Astro (METEOR)
Fairborn, Ohio Atrcraft:.
Sandyhock, Connectieut Astro (VENUS)
24 Rochester,New York PHOTO) Vis: Insufficient
Fhoto: Insufficie!
Eartlett, New Hanpshire ircraft.
Farmington, Illinois Ensufficient Data
25 Manchester, New umpshire ."Vis: Conflicting
PHOTO E. Insufficient Data
29 Sells, Arizona Istro (VENUS)
ADDITTONAL REPORTED SIGETINGS (NOT CASES)
DATE LOCATION SOURCE EVALUATION
15 Williamsburg, Massachusetts Ltr
23 Medford, Massachysetts NICAP
24 Victoria, Australia Ltr
J I 1 2
-
.
- T .
.
-
5.1
n:

Seattle, washington 98165
28 March 1966
..8
-
E
Department of the Air Force
Washington, D. C. 20330 The Pentagon
Gentlemen:
I am not a believer in flying Saucers, so it
is with some hesitancy I send you is with some hesitancy I send you this photograph
of an unidentified flying object. of an unidentified flying object.
I'm told its either a flying jelly fish, reflection I'm told its either a flying jelly fish, reflection
off the rat catcher on the boat or filn dafect. off the rat catcher on the boat or filn defect.
Since it is a conolete mystery to me, I send it to
you to add to your files.: If you know what it is
or can exolain it to me I would like to know.
As for me, I like the flying jelly fish exolanation. As for me, I like the flying jelly fish explanation.
Although the picture has only recently been
developed, it was taken about the first of the year
by my four year old boy.
Sincerely yours,
ferghees
Ill V Jerry koss
-
P. S. Could be bubble gua on cumera lens?

I wish to thank you for reporting this photograph to the Air
Force.
Sincerely,
HECTOR QULNTANILLA, Jr, MAjOr, USAF
Chief, Project Blue Book
1

NALYSIS REPORT 66-23 PAGES
NR 9_June 1966
DATE OF REPORT
SUBJECT UNIDENTIFIED FLYENG OBJECT
LOCATION SEATTLE, WASHINGTON DATE January 1966
PHOTOGRAPHY
AF. IR QUALITY Good
PNRS I print, I negative
1.1 PURPOSE: This report is in response to Work Order Number 66-56 from Major H. Quintanilla,
TDEW/UFO, who asked for an of a negative and print depicting an Unidentified Flying
Object.
2. ANALYSIs: This analysis was completed jointly by the Photo Analysis and Photo Processing
Divisions. The image on the nezative probably not from an object on the water or between
the water aht the camera. In fact, the-image'does not appear to be that of any defined object.
The image could have been caused by refracted light from a small water droplet on the lens, The imege could have be used Dy rerracted lignt ir wate
water condensation on the film, or an internal camera reflection. A water droplet on the lens water condensation on th film, or an internal camera reflection. A water droplet on the lens
PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: APPROVED BY:
Linid hi deheman nld li deheman Frank E. ms Peak Frank E. me Reak
GERALD A. SCHEIMAN RICHARD L. CHANCE
Intelligence Research Specialist Captain, USAF
Chief, Photo Analysis pirision Chief, Photo Analysis pifision
WILBER PRICE, JR. JP
Director,
Photo Exploitation Directorate
eT

PHOTO ANALYSIS REPORT 66-23 PAGEOF IPAGES
NR
DATE OF REPORT 9 JUNE 1966
SUBJECT UNIDINTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
LOCATION SEATILE, WASHINGTON DATE January 1966
PHOTOGRAPHY
AF. IR QUALITY Good
P NRS 1 print, I negative
1. PuRPosE: This report is in response to Work Order Number 66-56 from Major H. Quintanilla,
TDEw/UFo, who asked for an analysis of a negative and print depicting an Unidentified Flying
Object.
2.  ANALysrs: This analysis was completed jointly by the Photo Analysis and Photo Processing
Divisions. The image on the negative is probably not from an object on the water or between
the water and the camera. In fast, the image'does not appear to be that of any defined object. In faot, the.image does not appear to be that of any defined object.
The image could have been caused by refracted light from a small water droplet on the lens, The image could have beer caused by refracted light from a small water droplet on the lens,
water condansation on the film, or an internal camera reflection, A water droplet on the lens water condansation on the lm, or an internal camera reflection, A water droplet on the lens
appears to be the most reasonable explanation of the image, appears to be the most rea sonable explanation of the image,
PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:
Franks E. m. Peak Franks E. me Peak
GERALD A. SCHEIMAN Fo2 2o2 RICHARD L. CHANCE RICHARD L. CHANCE
Intelligence Research Specialist Gaptain, USAF Captain, USAF
Chief, Photo Analysis pirision
WILBER PRICE, WITBER PRT JR
Director,
Photo Exploitation Directorate

.
PHOTO ANALYSIS REPORT 66-23 PAGELOF LPACES
NP. 9 June 1966
DATE OF REPORY
SUBJEOT UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
LOCATION SEATTLE, WASHINGTON DATE January 1966
PHOTOGRAPHY
AF_ IR QUALITY Good
P NAS I print, I negative
1. PURPOSE: This report is in response to Work Order Number 66-56 from Major H. Quintanilla,
TDEw/UFO, who asked for an analysis of a egative and print depicting an Unidentified Flying
Object.
2. ANALrsIs: This analysis was completed jointly by the'Photo Analysis and Photo Processing
Divisions. The image on the negative is probably not from an object on the water or between Divisions. The image on the negative is probably not from an object on the water or between
the water and the camera. In fact, the- image does not appear to be that of any defined object. the water and the camera. In fact, the image does not appear to be that of any defined object.
The image could have been caused by refracted light from a small water droplet on the lens,
water condensation on the film, or an internal camera reflection. A water droplet on the iens
appears to be the most reasonable explanation of the image.
PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:
Bnili i lehiman Frank E. me Ceak
GERALD A. SCHEDMAN 22 2r RICHARD L. CHANCE RICHARD L. CHANCE
Intelligence Rasearch Specialist Intelligence Research Specialist Captain, USAF
Chief, Photo Analysis pipision
WILBER PRICE, JR
Director,
Photo Exploitation Directorate
1