1. OATEl TIME OUP' C 1 vi lim Photo il!ll'1l'll NUMaiR Oil OaJICTS 2. LOCATION 10. CONCLUSION Photx> Analsl.a South CharlestDn Chio RlotD ana.Jsl.a indicates tl'Bt the matt 1 ike]3' cause of the iDa& a light bulb and reflector taken at .,Jtipl.e xt: 5 . LENGTH OJI OUIIYATION 11. 1111' IUMMAIY AND ANALYSIS N/A Photo at "Fl.ying Saucer Tree" a1 bnitted tcr analysis 6. TYPE Oil OISIIYATION 9. PHYSICAL EYID!NCI FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIVISION,AFSC Ut! CLASSlft~9 UNClASSIFIED FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIVISIOH,AFSC FOREIGH TECHHOLOGY DIVISION,AFSC U fj C ASSJFIED ~FREE LANCE Pltnt (i) . ANAL. VSIS REPORT DATI 0' RIPO"T 22 Dece:.tber 1 UNIDENTIF'IED FLIING OBJECT LOCA.TIO~f South Charleston, Ohio Jl October 1964 PHOTOGRAPHY One negative and three prints provided by TDEW l. PURPOSE: 'Ibis report aruJWere work request #64-109 sub:nitted b7 Major H. Quintanilla,. TDElv/UFO or evaluation of most likely cause of images noted on the negative and prints. 2. ANALYSIS: Foreign Technology Division Photo Anal.ysis and Photo Processing personnel viewad the subject negative and prints with the following results. a. tvith all respect to Mr. as a tree lance photographer, we :reel the images were caused by a series of exposures prior to the 11m plate loading or after removing the film from the 11m clip holder. b. T"nis superimposed image was probabl.J" caused by a renection from a housed light c. T'ne sharpest image on the negative and print.s is probably-caused by-a ~ight bulb refiector and a screen over the refl.ector, such as is commo~ used for ceiling lighting. APPR07r:D BYa FRAme~. Y~ PEAK 0 Intel11ganca ResearCh Specialist ATIC "011M Ul WI t.I.I!.M L. TURNER Capta1 n, USAF Chief, Photo ~is UOC WI~ UIIO ENGINEERING SUPPO WOR 0 ENGJNtE:RING ANALYSIS Q PHOTO ANALYSIS 0 MACHIN co~PuTATION PPT NUMBER: DESCRIPTION OF WORK a Reqwaat photo u to ~mat 11kel.7 cauae '";'E"E"Ct MATEftlt. llep~lft two print. eDd le~ter datecl 7 Bow ~. Requeat all .Yriala 'be to tbS office upoa ioD~ At:QU t:S T tO IJV- 1 CCATI'V THAT DEADLINE WITHIN THII WORM II AUTHO .. IZEO MY DIVISION. IV Mt AND THAT IT HAS THC FOLLOWING PIUORITV AND D ADLI Nt: 0,\ T SIGNATURE OF APPROVING DIVISION CHIEF OAT tNGIH!:tAtNG ,UP~OftT MONITOR------------AJSISTANT------------- ''NAL WOflt'C TO DE lH FO,_M 0' : D ENGINE RING NOTE D COMPUTATION D p . REftORT Oot~tAWtNe WORM REOUtST AP,ROYED IV: .DEADLINE DATE----- PRIORITY NUMBI:R DONE 1 WOAC OltOI '"'II I I A ,_ FREE LANCE PHOTOGRAPHER Enolosed is the negative to be cheoked out. The data on negative is as ro1lows: The picture was taken on Oct. 3Ist. at 5:30 P.M It was taken with a 2! x 3i Century Graphic on tripod at F 32 with an expo time or three seconds. The r11m used was Ilford FP3-a fine grain panchromatic fi1m. \Three other shots were made or the same scene at srume location with slight ch~ge in the exposure time The other three negatives are clear o foreign objects. Major, dur~g our phone oonversation I ro~got to mention the fact that the strange objects on the film was not visable to my eyes or no sounds were heard at time of exposure. Also, Sir, I do not want this to be releasee to the news as yet is in ~he process or being copyrighted. I do hope that it w help you in some way in your work. If this can be solved it \Ylll certainly be a re1er to my mind. P .s. The camera lens \Yas al.so equipped with a K 3 yeJ.low f'11ter. South Charleston, Ohio South Charleston, Ohi0. Doc. IO_, I?64 ~'fednesday afternoon I called your office to check with. you concerning 2l naga.tive conta:tning U.F.O. t7hich I sent-. to :;ou a few vteeksi ago A Sergeant took the call. The COIIllersation with him gaw l:&. the opinion th:.-J; it waa som ldnd of trick photogca.ph.y. ~jor I wjsh this ms; true. Then it, could be cleared up. Eviden.tq tne. Sergpa:a:tJ Vel'3' little """ :I am: too bUST with 'lilT work to pJ:a7 atonrd with a j\ls't tD trick saxaone. Serious:q I dODi~ beJeive ~ photogratpher co1rlcf nx that. small o a negativa by trick. I think it trould be-i nrpossible to do so. but after che it could have-been done: :fn. Ettg)and. where the: film was nllde! the print. again I rroticed the one ob j~ct. going, thJough tbe x:bf wi-re! seennd to s:heared orr on both: sides allowing it to s:lide through Thi~. to ~a clea.rod the comJBllY .~nother .!actor th&t. I was concerned about r~as: at the bottoa part. ot' the negative which bas a E'q)oaure: uay be seen: l"'hic~ means ~ the th13 the object. to penetrate-the 1rood plrto of the filnl holder which made) the You nay keep th& negative until. your investigation is compl&ted. But. keep 011e ;pt:~;y at\' rrr:r pa.xt:. 1 J l I wisb is 70'L thj s thing up. Ir 1 t. cannot. ~ expla,j ned tell ne so .. I '",vj 1 1 ti"lsD. I &lease i~ to agenc;:ys:. SOUTH CHARLESTON 31 OCTOBER 1964 A free lance photographer took a picture on 31 October 1964 at 5:30 pm EST. Three other shots were made of the same scene at the same location with slight change in the exposure time. According to the photographer, the other three negatives are clear of foreign objects. The strange objects that appear on the film were not visible to the photographer, nor were any sounds heard at time of exposure. Photo analysis personnel fee l that the images \vere caused by a serie s of exposures prior to the film plate loading or after . removing the film from the film clip holder. This superimposed image was probably caused by a reflection from a housed light source. ~he sharpest image on the negative and prints is probabl y caused b y a light 0ulb reflector :1.nd a screen over tae reflector, such as .:.~ ; ommonly .;.sed for cellJ..J.g lighting. FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY DIVISION,AFSC UNCLASSIFIED Uti CLASSIFiED