Declassified UFO / UAP Document

Project 10073 Record — Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, 17 February 1967

📅 17 February 1967 📍 Elkins Park, Pennsylvania 🏛 Foreign Technology Division, AFSC 📄 sighting_report

Ever wanted to host your own late-night paranormal radio show?

Across the Airwaves · Narrative Sim · Windows · $2.95

You're on the air. Callers bring Mothman, Fresno Nightcrawlers, UFO sightings, reptilian autopsies, and whispers about AATIP and Project Blue Book. Every reply shapes how the night goes.

UFO & UAP Cryptids Paranormal Government Secrets Classified Files High Strangeness Strange Creatures
The night is long. The lines are open →

AI-Generated Summary

TL;DR

A 12-year-old boy reported a UFO sighting and provided a photograph, which the Air Force officially dismissed as a multiple exposure and processing defect. The witness repeatedly challenged this conclusion, leading to a series of letters between him and Air Force officials.

This document contains the case file for a UFO sighting reported by a 12-year-old boy in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, on 17 February 1967. The witness, who was at his desk preparing to leave, observed a round, pulsating object in the sky that changed color from pink to an 'ugly red.' He photographed the object using a Kodak Instamatic-104 camera. The report includes the original sighting questionnaire, correspondence between the witness and the Air Force, and the official photo analysis report. The Air Force's Foreign Technology Division (FTD) evaluated the photograph and concluded that the image was a 'multiple exposure' and a 'processing defect,' citing frame outlines on the negative and a 'cone-shape' blur. The witness, however, engaged in a persistent correspondence with Major Hector Quintanilla and Major David Stiles, challenging these findings. He argued that the 'cone-shape' was simply the top of the negative and that the 'processing defect' was an incorrect assessment, maintaining that he had witnessed the object moving in the sky with his own eyes. The Air Force officials remained firm in their evaluation, with Major Quintanilla eventually suggesting that the witness submit his concerns to the University of Colorado's independent investigation team (the Condon Committee). The file concludes with internal Air Force memos expressing frustration with the witness's persistence, with Major Quintanilla stating that while the witness had a right to disagree, the Air Force would not change its evaluation.

This youngster is trying to pick an argument with regards to the analysis of his photo. The photo analysis people are not changing their evaluation regardless of [redacted]'s feelings and his explanations.

Official Assessment

Sighting (INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR EVALUATION); Photo: (PROCESSING DEFECT)

The Air Force concluded the photograph was a multiple exposure and a processing defect. The witness strongly disagreed with this assessment, arguing that the 'cone shape' identified by the Air Force was merely the top of the negative and that the image was not a processing error.

Witnesses

Key Persons

Military Units