PROJECT 10073 RECORD 2. LOCATION 10. CONCLUSION t. NUt~8ER OF OBJECTS Photo do~:~ n e t : - sr.ri t ivl'l of all ; 11. BRIEF SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS .'i. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION t .. ll'PE OF OBSERVATION Grour~d '/ i :ua l a!~pcnr~d to ~Tobhl~. 1320 foot hill . PHYSICAL EVIDENCE r T I) s t: p '> J 0329 (TO E) Ptlt'/loue edltlona of thh fonD may be ueo ct. G. vVeather and Winds -Aloft Conditions at Time and Place of Sightings: 1. Observer(s) account of weather conditions: Clear 2. Report from nearest AWS or U.S. Weather Bureau Office: Windy +48F at 1400L 3 Ceiling: Clear 4. Visibility: Unlimite d 5. Amount of cloud cover: N/A 6 . Thunderstorms in area and quadrant in which located: N/A 7. Vertical temperature gradient: N/A H. Any Other Unusual Activity or Condition: I. Interception or Identification Action Taken: None J. T....ocation, approximat~ a ltitu:lc I anri general dire ction o f fligh t o f :1ny cir t:-a:fi~ or balloon releases in the area which might possibly account for the sighting: Called in too late t o check with FAA/First Air Force. K. Position, title and comments of the preparing officer: 1st Lt Thomas A. Knutson I UFO Officer 4713th Defense Systems Evaluation Squadron Stewart AFB initial interview was by telephone. The pictures were received 1 1/2 vveeks after the call. A second interview (personal) was conducted after receipt of photographs and Mr urnished the negative. lAW Paragraph 12c of AFR request that the negative and photographs be returne d to Mr. upon completion of necessary studies, analysis and duplication by the Air Force. Mr. is married and employed by his father. He is quite interested in the object and has given these pictures to the newspapers. The only thing that can make the sighting valid is the negative which is enclosed. Mr. and his brothe r developed the photographs. L. Existence of physical evidence such as materials and photographs: Tw o photographs and one negative. (both attached) for all photoc;ra p~ s forv.J;\rC:Gc. ;l - ... (The following this form) i~formation is required Typo end mu)(o of came .... Type, focal length, and make of lens: Brand and type of film: Shutter speed used: lens opening used; that is, "f ". stop: Filters used: 'vVas tripod or solid stand used: Was ''panning" used: Exact direction camera was pointing with relation to true north, angle with respect to the ground:. llEl:O for the Record: Contact was made with one of the witnesses. The brother of the witness w~o took the icture revealed the following : He thought the camera was a camera. Verichrome Pan 127 film black was used. t!o flash bulb was used nor was the camera set for any focus since all you have to do is to set in the film and take a picture. There is no focusing of the lens. There was no fOREIGH HCHNOlOGY DlVIS\O~LAfSC UMCllSS\HEO UHCUSSiiiH> fOREIGN TECHHOlOGY OIVISIOH,AFSC UK ClASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED fORt\GH HCHHOlOGY DlVISlON,AfSC UMCU.SStrlED UHClAS~IIl!: NORTHWEST ERN UNIVERSITY EVANST01', ILLINOIS 60201 OE"ART.'vtENT OF ASTRO:"lOMY UNOHI!IMER ASTRONOMlCAL RESEARCH CENTi!R. ~ :::;earch a.r1:i Aerial Phenor.tenon Di visioll . _ .. lght-Pa ttercon Ai r Force Base r. -c en: Ha j or H . Qu.int.ani lla, Jr. 0~ar Najor O;ui ntanilla: R8 : UFO of lU Dece~nb8r 1966, Bear r-1 t . Sta tc Par k , ITe\T York. .E.'valuated orig i nally as noax. On re-examination, I f ind no suostantiation for the evaluation of hoax , :;>a r ticularly in vievr of the photo-aEalysis report, No. 67-10, dated 20 Feb- ruary 1967, wD.ich contains no information upon vrhich a hoax can be based. 'l: o the contrary, the r e:9or t states that close exa1aination of the negative ias negated doubl e exposur e and/or retouching. The photographs appear :::euuine insofar as content is concerned, howev er, no satisfactory explanation of the u nider:.tif ied object. could oe made. The lack of a satisf actory ex- .:_;.lanation of the unidentified objec t does not constitute sufficien t reason :.o declare it a hoax. Further , the inte~ietver considered the \iit.ness to be :.1 "reliable source." .h~"'t2r examination of the -print oy ruyself and by Mr. of the UEiversity oi' Chicago, vie feel that the original negative s be requested i ' cr furthe r examination. Mr. , a qualified :photo-analyst, disagrees .. ; l ch the photo analysis presented i n t h e report as to the distance of the c~)ject. He points out that the depth of field e:xtends much farther than in- ii ca ted in the report. It trill be noted., from the print, that the focus i s ;oor in the e~tire peripher y of the picture regardless of the distance; only iL the center of the picture is the focus good, and this good focus extends ::ssentially to infinity. Consequr~ntly no judgment can be w.ade as to the real size cf the o"'Jject, if this judgment is ~oased solely on the quality of f ocus. >:/ recom~'ilend3:t ion is, therefore:, that the evaluation by changei from hoax to Sincerely yours, J . Allen Hynek DATE OF REPOR~ O February l ? . UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT Lake Tiorati, Bear Mountain State Park New Yprk DATE 18 December 1966 PHtTG~APHY QUALITY Poor to Fair p NRS 1 negative, 2 prints (B&W) 1. PURPOSE: This report is in reply to a request submitted by Major Quintanilla (TDETR) t o determine the identity of the object photographed. 2. ANALYSIS: Examination of the negative has negated double exposure and/or retouching. The photographs appear genui!le insofar as content is concerned, however, no satisfactory explanation could be made of the unidentifie d object. The object appears to be circular in planfonn, basically flat in cross section with a domed "superstructure". The object appears to b e situated beyond the foreground trees, indicating a diamete r in excess of eight inches, and the relative clarity indicate s it to be substantially nearer than the background trees. The object could have a diameter as grea t as two or.three feet. No attempt at "panning" was indicat e d as is evidenced by the sharpness of the general scene. The object ex..ilibi t s some sma l l degree of blurriness indicating motion, the direction of which could not be ascertained. PHOTO ANALYSIS BY: DOUGLAS H. ROGERS Intelligence Research Specialist APPROVED BY: WILUAM L. TURNER Major, USAF Chief, Photo alysis Branch WILBER PRICE. JR. C hi ef, Photo Exploitation Division f3 cl~t-tnt.. :srATe fFt<~ Dear 1"ir. Reference your oO.ervation o~ uniuentified flJing Your photographa were fo to expert for a comprebenaive evaluation. They found that tt. obJ ap to be circular, basically tat 1n croaa with a 'superstructure.a The obJect to be a1 tuatel be:fond tbe roregxound tees, indicating a dialleter 1D cd ri~ ; tbe t1 clarity indicates i.t to be auba the a. The object . could have a diameter u t.ro or t;hree feet. The obJect . exh1b1ta 8aD8 ..U de ~ blurrineaa. indicating , the . ~ vhich ~d 4 .not be .L do -act. aubetaotiate:, . atataaent 'the" 1 elati ve nze o-r th9 object tO be .. very big.'~ The obJect photographed was. a-t a .: or ill cUsxoeter . llo otber UJ'O 0~ tbe Un1 ted States on Dec:e ttinayour l'U .A'&rL: to the Air Foree -ror ~UU.ty Bel ati D1 Vision - : or ..... r~1 of Infor1oation cy -SA~-O IC FTD WORK ORDER 1. Description of Work: (Include title of unscheduled tasks.) Request photo analysis be a.ccompllshed on the attached negative and two prints to determine wh~t unidentified object 18 Dec 66, Bear Mountain St.<~.te Park, New York Request all material be returned upon co~pletion of analysis. 18. Div. Chiefs Instructions /Modification or Expansion of Work Description 7. Dote Needed 8 Fehn1acy J 967 8. Consequence 9. Classification ~1 1 SOJU:ce 10.Ciossificotion End Product _unclassified 12.Div./Oir. Syr 13. M-H Estimo 15. Phones '16. Div. ?reced DfPARTM~NT 0~ THe AIR FORCE STlWAIH AI .. JOACE BAS!, NEW Y'O~lC 12550 16 January 196 7 UFO Report FTD (AFSC) The attached report is submitted in accordance with paragraph 8, APR 80-17. The delay in submitting this report was c d from the lateness in receiving the photographs from Mr. nd, as a consequence, it was decided to attempt to obtain more detailed information as to this particular sighting. UFO Report, w/ photographs A. De scription of the Object (s ): 1. Shape: Long object with hump on i t s back. 2. Size compared to a know object: Unknown except very big. Kept shape 3 Color: Gold! sh -silver to brown. 4. Number: One 5. Formation, if more than one: N/A 6. Any discernible features or details: Long with hump on back. 7. Tail, trail, or exhaust, including size of same compared to size of object(s): 8. Sound; if heard, de scribe sound: None 9. Other pertinent or unusual features: No wings -flat. B. De scription of Course of Object (s): 1. What first called the attention of observer(s) to the object(s): Unknown, observer just looked up and saw it. 2. Angle or elevation and azimuth of object(s) when first observed: 45 moving Northeast. 3. Angle or elevation and azimuth of object(s) upon disappearance: 45 angle. 4 . Description of flight path and maneuvers of object(s): It appeared t o '.'JOb~l_.. 5. How did the object(s) disappear: Went over and behind fire tower located on a 13 2 0 foot hill 6. How long (were) the object(s) visible: five to seven seconds. .. C. Manner of Observation: 1 Ground -visual 2. Optical Aids: Camera, Included are two pictures and a negative. D. Time and Date of Sighting: 1. Zulu time-date group of sighting: 21402, 18 December 1966. 2. Light conditions: Dusk E. Location of Observer(s): On shore of Lake Tiorati, Bear Mountain State Park, New York On the East e nd of lake looking West. F. Identifying Information on Observer(s): 1. Military or Civilian: Civilian 2. Name: M 4. Mailing Address: c/o Bronx, NY 10~65 5 . Occupation: Labor Foreman 6 . Estimate of Reliability: I consider Mr. reliable solr ce