Declassified UFO / UAP Document
Answer to Request of Speed Letter dated 30 January 1967
Ever wanted to host your own late-night paranormal radio show?
Across the Airwaves
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.
AI-Generated Summary
A 1967 memorandum evaluating photographic evidence of a potential UFO. The analysis concludes that the provided prints are insufficient to determine the object's authenticity.
This memorandum, dated 21 February 1967, provides an analysis of photographic prints in response to a request dated 30 January 1967. The author notes that the analysis was restricted by the limited quality of the provided prints, which were subject to inherent distortions from the copying process. The report details several technical observations, including the enlargement factors of the prints and the relative grain clarity. It notes that the UFO image appears more sharply defined in certain prints compared to a helicopter image. The author explores the possibility that differences in the size of the UFO image between prints could be attributed to changes in the camera-to-UFO distance, offering two hypothetical scenarios involving different distances and object sizes. Ultimately, the report concludes that it is impossible to determine the authenticity of the UFO image based on the provided prints. The author suggests that while an analysis of the original photographs might provide more definitive information, the current evidence is insufficient to conclude whether the object is a model or a genuine UFO. Further study, including stereoscopic and dynamic analysis, is recommended.
No definitive conclusion as to whether the object is either a model or a genuine UFO can be offered at this time.
PDF not loading? Download the PDF directly
Official Assessment
No definitive conclusion can be reached regarding the authenticity of the image as a UFO.
Analysis of the provided prints was limited by the copying process, which introduced distortions. The report notes that the grain clarity is similar across prints, and the UFO image is more sharply defined in one print than in the helicopter image. It suggests that differences in image size between prints might be due to camera-to-UFO distance changes, but concludes that the object could be either a model or a genuine UFO.