PROJECT BLUE BOOK

PROJECT 10S73 RECORD
J. DATR- TIME GROUP 2. LOCATION
14 Jun 67 14/18002 iivders.
3. SOLPCE 10. CONCLUSION
Civiiian Photo: Other: (PROCESSING DEFECT)
4. NUMBER OF OBJECTS sightingt (NOT ORSERVED)
One
5. LENGTH OF VATION BRIEF SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
N/A The observer at no time saw the object. The image
6. TYPE OF OBSERVATION when he
CERACE C N/A
7. COURSE COMMENTS: Photo experts stated1 that the image could possible
be the result of a film processing defect, such as a bubble in
N/A the developer or a light reflection.
. PHOTOS
BIXYes
0 No
9. PHYSICAL EVIJENCE
Yes
XEXNo
FORM
FTD SEP 63 0-329 (TDE) Previous editions of thie form mey be ueed.
, ,
. 3

FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIVISION,AFSC UNCLASSIFIED
0
UNCLASSIFIED

3,8x10 XAN
This case contains
photos and /, 4×5" negative

PHOTO ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE_OF _1
NR. 67-64
DATE OF REPONT_30 AUEARS 1957
SUBJECT UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT
IDERS, CALIFORNIA DATE 14 June 1967
PHOTOGRAPHY
AF IR QUALITY
PNRS
1. PURPOSE: This report is written to fulfill a request, Work Order Number 67-ll3, subnitted
by Major H. Quintanilla, Jr URO to determine the identity of atified object
in the attached photo.
ANALYSIS: The object cannot be definitely identified. There is the possibility that
it could film processing de lect, such as a bubble in the developer,' or a light reflection.
An analysis the original I negative could possibly reveal new information which cannot be
gleanad fr
PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: APPROVED BY:
ROBERT D. MERS , ROBERT D. MYERS WILLIAM L. TURNER
Intelligence Rosearch Intelligence Rosearch A Specialist Major, USAF
Chief, Photo Analysis Branch Chief, Photo Analysis Branch
WILBER WILBER PRICE, JR.
Chief, Photo Exploitation Division
7
!
ATO ON I
1EH 43) EXIsTINd BTOox WiLL.Ct VOED.
II

Three earlier isits to th had resulted in unsatisfactory
photographs due the sun or incorrec xposure.
All of these earlier visits had been made late in afternoon;
therefore, I had decided to see if ouldn't get better results
during the fourth vi graphs morning.
When the enclosed photograph was taken, the camera mounted
on a tripod cused it, made the settings noted above. and then
stood in front of i and to one side so that my shadow would protect
the lens from the direct glare of the sun. At the moment I tripped
the shutter by casle release, I was looking at the lens,
not at the object being photographed. time did I actually
see the apparent "unidentified flying object" in the photograph.
film after its development, noticed
a donut-shaped object sky above the building's dome. It
appeared to be an undex oned spot surrounded by a clear area. Naturally,
the clear area in the finished I print.
My first reaction was to conclude that somehow the developer
had failed to reach that spot and that the result was a flaw on the
negative. Perhaps, I thought, tha portion of the film had been
touching another spot the same lay coiled in the
development tank. I But no cor anywhere else
on that roll. The tank used, incidentally, is 2. Nikor,
designed to hold one roll of l2o film.
(more)
-
-

object in motion.
(3) I have taken and developed thousands of pictures, and this is the
first time I have seen anything like this on any of them. It is
certainly an astounding coincidence that the one picture in which
it dces appear was taken in an in which flying saucer sightings
have been so often reported and th bat appears, not t superimposed
on the building or on the ground, bu he sky, where one would
expect to see a flying saucer.
I still think the in this picture is the result
of some accident during development, but because of the factors
listed above I am submitting this print for your opinion and for
insertion in your files. If you would like to see the negative as
well, please let me know and I'll send it to you.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
=
,
5.

was
on a tripod. I focused it, made settings noted ye, and then
stood front of it and to one side so that my shadow would protect
the lens from the direct glare the sun. At the tripped
the shutter pushing a casle elease, I was looking at the lens,
not at the object being photographed. no time did I actually
see the apparent "un nidentified flying object" in the photograph.
to reach that the result was a
negative. Perhaps, I t thought, that portion of the film had been
touching another spot on the same it lay coiled in the
development tank. " appears nywhere else
on that roll. The tank used, inoidentally, is a Nikor,
designed to hold one roll of 120 film.
(more)
-

certainly an astounding coincidence that the one
it does appear was taken in rea in which flying saucer sightings
have been so often reported ar appears, superimposed
on the building or on the grou the sky, where one would
expect to see a flying saucer.
I still think the "object" shown in this picture is the result
of some accident during development, but because of the factors
listed above I am submitting this print for your opinion and for
insertion in your files. If you would , like to see the negative as
well, please let me know and I'll send it to you.
Sincerely,
,

C
Pomona, CaliForni 91767
1
(5) (5) 14ome67 14Danel7
MAMN

0
1
HP
IU