PHOTO ANALYSIS OF UFO PHOTOGRAPHY

Created: 2/17/1967

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible

7

MhWRAJJUUM FOB; Director, National Fhotographlo InterpretationAnalysis of UFO Fhotegraphy

This memorandua It In response to Project, submittedthit hoto analysis of photographs imaging an alleged UFO. unidentified flying object).

The photography for this project was supplied by thePhenomena Office cfocated at Wriglit-Pattcrson AFP, Dayton, Ohio. The photographic package included three pliotoof the UTO (attachmentsndnd one photo enlargementelicopter The latter was supposedly taken At approximately the saw lime and from approxirstely the eame can-ra station as vere tho UFO photographs. The Image quality of these four prints were less than optima and wereoor fcr nensural and photo analysis. Thcce four enlargel photcgraphs were copies reproduce!econd generation negative and attachments

1ere supposedly printed full format with an epproxirotemage format. re assumed not to be full roimt and were not usel in this photo analysis because of thishe originaL photography.yaa_takcnolaroid Swinger having anffftge format. Those original prints were not available for the photo analysis. This letter eingle factor greatly:.he * sis and prevented any hopes of establishing meaningful ensvera.

Included in the photographic package vere fiveof the alleged exposure station and surroundingphotographs (attachmentera token. Nyls of the USAF. He personally investigated thestation on the shore of lake St. Clair, Htchlgui, andduplicate as closely as possible the exact pool lion orcairera exposure stations. Major llyls also providedof the area and objects imaged in tho original UTO

I I

v..

SUBJECT: Analyst* of WO InoU^rajiiy

photographs (attachments These photographs along with the measurement sketches and investigation reporteans of obtaining sn approximate pliotogrophic scale, litis scale value was then used to obtain approximate dimensions of tho WO. However, to do this the photo analyst had to first soke major assumptions. These assumptions were necessaryhoto analysis, of this type where Insufficient date Is available or in doubt. If any or these assumptions are in error the obtained dlcensions are likewise In error.

I*. The assumptions used in this photo analysis are as follows:

s. UTO vasistance5 miles from camera station when photographed (this information supplied by Kajor Kyis In his Investigation report).

b. The measurements rupplicd by Major N'yis aro correct as atated.

e. Photographs shown inrc full format.

i

photographed was circular with plane ofperpendicular to camera axis.

distance between the canera station andwas large enough so thit adjustments to thesMfttfc need not be considered.

5. rtists rough conception of the UTO along with the averaged dimension obtained from the mensural analysis of the photograph shown in attachmentsand 2. Again, tho user of this Information must be cautioned that the dimonsions shown here are only approxloutions based on assumptions. The quality of the photography, the crude estimation of the distance from the camera station to the /oject, the lack of original printsprecise camera data all tend to invalidate the answers. ood example of how the dimensions could change la illustrated by any change in the -Usf tho object from the caiwra station. Tho dimensions will clange In direct proportion as the ratio of any new distance divided by5 mile distance that waa0herefore, caurir; the new vMues tof the original values.

SUHJECli Photo Analysis of UTO Photography

6. In conclusion, it should be noted that alt of the Jnfor-rntlon contained In this memorandum deals vith quantitative or dimensional information obtained from calculations basedarge number of assumptions. The qualitative or subjective analysis of the imagery is not treated becauseack of background Knowledge on WO iiaagery. This office cannot shed any light on the authenticity of this alleged UTO from this photo analysis. Thereefinite evidence that this photographyoax. On the other hand, for one to assume that this objectFO Is equally as dangerous. There are too rany unanswered questions to label the probable cause cf thic sighting as anytldng but For example the degradedquality of the hell-copter vhen compared vith the WO is suspect vhen considered that the helicopter vas eloser to earners station vhen photographed. Likewise, the crlspnoes of tho edge gradient o" the black band on the UTO is good considering the distance at which the object vas photographed. Also, the fact that the tail section of the UFO was photographed In each case with the same cross section exposed casts some suspicion on the authenticity of the UTO. Hcwevor, each of the above facte can be explained by various reasons and because of these reasons the photo analysis of this UTO.photographuited in Inconclusive ancwora.

Original document.

---

---