3 . SOURCE 4. NUMBER Or CBJECTS 5. LENGTH Or :IBSERVATION 1 b . T YP:: o;= c;..>::RVATION 8. PHOTOS C:-:..;;i:~al neg - 9. PHYSICAL : v .:::>ENCE PROJECT 10073 RECORD 2. LOCATION ~lt. Cl-=:r:em>, ~1ichlrrun ( 2 ,,.itnesses) 10. CONCLUSION PHOTO (INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR EVALUA'I'ION, OHIGINAL PJIO'I'OGRAPHS 1110T RECEIVED) VISUJ..L: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR EVAWA'l'ION e ~e~surement of h~,_imag~ does not substantiate the 11. BR!:r SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS T-..o .._: tnesses watched a dark gta y colore d , disk shaped object hov~.:-et a low altitude and finally move off very fast to the sot::::.-=:.st . Photograph was t nken of' the ollegerJ UiO; ho,,ever deteiled investigation of copies of the orig:lna l tnd:i.ca ted a :-c33:ible hoax. ?t~ :~s~ is bein g c arried d.::.-:.=. I'o r evaluation since nen== analyzed by the Air i n Air Force the original files as insufficient photographs ,,ere The original photography would provide a basis for determining a ange of sizes for the object. Knowing the size of the image within the p:,oto format I the focal length of the camera and applying the observers reported range to the object from the camera a gross deter- mlnc.:ion of size cari. be d.ilitef!uri Red . ;. .. ,~ ~ tf. t_'> ~ The original photography would permit a comparision of edge sha:-;.ness between the helicopter and the unidentifie d object. It was :-sported that the o bject was furthe r away from the observer thaD ~:1e helicopter . If this is true the edges on the object would not ~e as sharp a s those of the h elicopter. The enl argements pro': jed indicate tha'tl ~i:>j ect is nearer than the helicopter but w e do::1'. :<now if the enlc.~gements are at the same magnification I there - by 11_1ing o ut this check on the r eported information. INVESTI GATION OF LOCATION OF SIGH'riNC The o.rea is on the shore of Lake Saint Clair just south of the mou t h of the Clinto~ River. The pictures were taken through the 2! inch iron pipe structu=~ s~own in picture #5. The object was reported as being east ot:~ ::JYe r the ice about t mile av1ay . l was ta~en wit~ en identi cal camera (Poloroid Swinger) standing in th:: 3a-ne spot. The horizontal line across the l o we r portion of the pic~u=~ !s the edge of the ice out on the lake. The horizon and the o ppos.i.-.e shore are not visible. Pictu=~ ~2 was taken in the same spot with the lens a t maximum opening . Pictu:-: #3 was taken with the lens at minimum opening . Pictu.:-~ ffl~ obserre:-. A diagra."Tl to show the relationship of the pipe and tree and c easurements are shown on attachment #1. :2.\Ci<GROUND t-1ATERI.AL ':'~.:: fs..-~ ly was very relu::!~a.-:t to talk or e;ive up the original prints of t~::-;:..:-:".lres. The boys f;-:.2.-:-cd. that about 5 minutes after the saucer left) 1::-.~y ~.:>e., a picture of a nelicopter. However, the numbering on the back o: th~ ~=ints indicated -:.~a-:. a t least one picture of the object was taken after ~ ?icture of t he ne: opter had been taken. (It. h::..s s:.::ce been fou.Dd '.::Jt not ex in~ -:.~e o:-iginals they state d that it also shm-1ed the object. seen by the investigator.) Permission to However, the orieinals were phone number is showed no evidence of tainpering or PICTURE NUMBERING #1 Shows object #2 ShoVls object /!J helicopter #4 missing but shows object # 5 Sho:rs object ll.T ~ l 0 i1T H- "l''IL'il ~0 C'JPIZD 3Y -o I o o J T r :' i OT I N~VER USE Jo'OR IIT'PilOVAUS ()J!>API'ROVA.J..S. MEMO ROUTING CONCUitUHNC.:I~S. 0/t SJMfL.'IU ACTIONS AFOSR- SRPS Re.tchfor d DATE COOROINAliON lfiFORMATIOII SICIIAlURE ;!)ear Tom, ?lease see i f you can get some expert opinions with re- 3arQS to the s i ze the alleged flying s aucer. As you an see by t he e~c:osed photo analyai s r eport, ot~ peopl e 'e.t Hright-P.c1ttersc n are very reluctarrt t o off e r u gues s ;or opini on . I f a~ all possible please expedite be cause :-:.h e news medi a is ~ l a:noring for an expert anRlysi s of :-:he ~hotographs. : r your fri end can come up wit h s ome C.e!':!.nite rueasure:ne~ts the only thing I '\-ti l l s ay is : and I would not mentic ~hoto analysis bC..:cates etc, etc , e organi zation . .Y.any t hanks f or your help and I will j.>e .. --aiting anxiOU3ly f or some sort of conclusion . I f' ! g defi~i~e ! s derived from the photos please c all ~e pape r we=~ c~ follow l ater. Than. 'Its HECTOR QJ!ln'ANIIJ.A, Najor, USAF Chief,Aeria l Phenomena Off i FTD (TDET/Ul'u) tl8 J an 67 Wright-Patterson AFB, llep!ae(':s 0 0 Form 04, I Feb 5Q a11d O U Form 115, I reb SO which will bo lll!ed until cxhuu&ted GPO ltfl1 O-S?&1'Sl . Rewritten UFO Sighting, 9 January 1967, 26 January 1 . Reference your request for information on an unidentified flying object sighting of 9 January 1967, Ht. Clemens, Michigan. The report was investigated by Major Nyls, Selfridge AFB Michigan. jor Nyls has requested the original prints of the photographs ta?.en, on three different occasions; however, to date the family has been very reluctant to talk or permit the original prints to be viewed by the Air Force. 2 . Analysis of the available photographs failed to provide any definite jnformation pertaining to the identification of the unidentified object. The original photographs are required to ascertain whether or not a fruitful analysis can be made. Copies of the original prints vere made by the Detroit News and provided by a reporter , Mr , to Major Nyls. 3. The original photographs would permit a comparison of edge sharpness between the helicopter and the unidentified object. Witnesses ~ported that the object was further away from the observer than the ~elicopter. If this is true, the edges on the object would not be as sharp as those of the helicopter. The enlargements provided indicate that the object is nearer than the helicopter but we do not know if +'".he enlargements are of the same magnification, therefoi;"e ruling out this check on the reported information. 5-. Contact vas m.e..de vi th Dr. J. Allen Hynek regarding his statements rwhich. vere carried over the wire aerYice 16 January 1967. Dr. Hynek 1 crmed our office that he only told the Associated Press that the pbotog=aphs appeared to be of an authentic image. He claimed he was mja~o~ed vhen the AP said that he~ Dr. Hynek stated the photographs ~re apparently authentic. 5. An evaluation of th~ original p rints is essential in mruting a ensive ev~lu~tion on this sighting "ILLIAl"t F . MARIE!, Jr, lst Lt, u6AF .~erial Phenomena Bronch Aerospace Technologies Division Technology and Subsystems Directorate AP Wire, Detrol t , 16 J anuary 1967 mo for ~he Record: C<.ll 'ri!'J3 rcceiv~d from ktjor Nyl~, Selfridgt! AF'D, 1-:ichii p;an (ex-3115) :..:; :-eg3:-cts to a UFO sightin g ov,.:r Lak~ St. Clair. He said that ~ .oto;: .~ere tflken o: th~ obj ":Ct by t\-ro men as they w~ce out in their .. yard. The object \la.s nbout a qu:trt~:r o f a 111ile a wa y and ":Y!~red before spe~ding m-Ja.y. He said thnt he would sent copies o~ the pictures rlS soon as he could \>~lilth camera data. Hajor Nyls .;;;id thn.t he had cont:!cted SAFOI and L.old them of the sighting. :';1~ sightin g shoulc! hare a lot of public interest. ;-:.:no for the H.eco:ed : Contact was rr.a?e with !fajor l~yls (ex-3115) in regards to the si ~hting. :-:~ said tho.t he had gon~ out t o t h e scene of the s;Lp;htin8 a nd h.1d S'!e n th~ original pictures. lie sClid that the family VIas ver y re- luct?.:'lt to tnlk about the si~hting; "It wr; tJ a V<~ry funny f<"~mily .. ajor Nyls stood in t h e same srot nnd looked in the direction that t.h~ picture was taken. The pipe and tree br::mches tha t were in one c.~ the pictures '.,e r e onl y CJbout four feet .frorn the cam.~ra. The s ~ -., .. o~o thi ngs Here i:1 fairly sharp focus. Th~ c<>nera would have been a.~ about a ten de.::;re angle vrith the ~round. 1!ajor Nyls contacted ~1e helicop~ er -;ilo:. but the pilot saw nothing out of t'te >rdinary. ere was i c e on :.~e l~ke which ruled out the possibility o f the o'::>j~ct bein~ a boa:. of som~ kind. llajor Nyls looked for a bo3t ~ut did not see a~y. r.~e familys