PROJECT IV 13 ~ECORD . J. ::>,~ T::i Yst. of GROUP 2. LOCATiv N ::..,. '.1ers. Cal ifornia 3. SOl: f 'CE _ 110. COHCLUSIOI\ 4. NUMBER OF OBJECTS sightin.gt Jthe:t":-(P:iOCESSING DEFECT) ( NOI' O&,""hrttr'AD) S. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 11. BRIEF SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS ~ The observer at no ttme saw the object. roll of film when he developed it. The image was on tae I 6. 1YPE OF OBSERVATION CavJMENTS r Fhoto experts stated that the image could be the result of a fi~ processing defect, such as a t-~Nr,/~A~----------------, the developer or a light reflection, Y. Pt!YSICAL EV1JENCE bubble in FOREIGt~ TEClH~OLOGV DIVISION,AFSC UNCLASSIFIED UtjCLASSIFIED IJU.~LIT'f to fuJ.fill n r'3qu.est, Order Xt:.:11oer 67-11.3 o.: t he un.ide~"';,i:'ici c j -~ t, object cun!'l.::>t. r-:c.jor F. to:r-Quintinilla, Jr . Di!'ector, U. S . A. ? . "Project 3lue Book" ~ir Fo!'ce Research and Development Co~nand ~.f!'i3h t -?c. tterson Air Force :Sase Dayton, Ohio Daar Hajor Quintinilla: The enclosed photograph, containing \That appears to be an "unidentified flying object, is hereby subr~i tted for comparison \Ti th other such photographs in your files. It \las taken shortly before 10 A.r.I., \fed!'l.esday, June 14, 1967, neo.r Lander s , California, -vrhile the ca!!!era liaS pointed in a northeasterly C.i!'uction. The canera (a Rolleicord) 1m3 sot at fl6 ~ri th a shutter SfnJ~;..;d. of l/250th of a second. A K2 yelloH filter uas used to slightly d::..r~:c!'l fte sky so that the ;,r.hi te C.ooe of -.:he building being p.hoto3rc.p!:.ed ... oulJ. sto.nd out ~ore clearly. The filL1, Kodak Plus-.X:, '"G!.S developed i~1 a .;elution nc.rf5cted commarcially as X33C for 12t :ninutes at a t nccature of 70 F . n ' ::'> bt..i ldi nrr con.;t~u.c t e d by I:u- o: ,;La o;>inlon t h~d i~tended to use tt an "In tegrt:!. tron" or "Ti::Je I<achine" of nearby Gic.nt Rock. I am is an out-and-out fraud, and I to illustrate a tongue-in-cheek _1;!.;;asine article a".Jou t "Tir.:e [!fachine" and the Giant Rock area. .=e e e~lier visits to the site had rcsul ted. in unso.tisfactory photo~raphs due to the position of the sun or incorrect eY.posure. All o~ these earlier visits h~d been nade lute in the afternoon; ttor0for-e, I had decided to see if I couldn' t get better results duri!\g tho fourth visit by taking tho pho,;ogro.yhs in the morning. '.lhi.m the e~clc 3~d. p::oto[;rc.ph Has t::J..ken, the caner a Has moU-"lted on a tr~pod. I :~c~se~ it, x ade the setting s noted above, and then stooj l~ fro~t of it a!id to one side so that ny shaC.ow 'rould protect the l eLs from the ~irec,; gl~:r-e of the s . At the moment I trippeu the s~:u~ter by pushing ~ c~JJ.e release, I was looking at the lens, no~ at the object being ptotographed. At no ti~e did I actually see the apparent "unid~t".ti:t'ied !lying object" in the photograph. soon as I inspect~d the fil~ af,;er its dcveloprec~t, I ~oticed a donut-sh~ped object in :~e sky above the building' s dome. It ~-.. ,~J ~'J..:r2d to be 3.n u:-lde"""-c~c~ 'd znct surrc'J.~ .. \le1 by a cl0~ a.~ea. l~atu~'llly, Iiy first reaction was to conclude th~t so~chow the dcvclooer l:a d felilcd to reac~1 t~:...t Sl)Ot a:r:d tha t tf:e re~ul t Ha s a flc:.\i 0!1 'the nc:;::::.tive. :Perhaps, I t!~ou.::;ht, that portion of the film had bee n t~, .c:dng anothe r spot on the sar.1e roll a~ it l a y coiled. in t h e d er::lo r~cnt tank. But no c orresponding flaH appear:> a n yi,here els e des~3 d to h o l d O~d rol l o ~ 1~0 til~. Here are some other actors about the situation that seeo strange to me: (1) If the white spot is t h e result of lack of developoent, \iila.t the explanation for the clear ring (clear on the negative, that is) surrounding i~? (2) Instead of being clearly defined around the edges, as might o~ expected of a spot caused by checicals, this spot is fuzzy around the edges, as might be expected in the photograph of an object in motion. (3) I have t en and developed thousands of pictures, and this is the first time I have seen anything like this on any of them. It is cc!'talnly an astounding coincidence that the one picture in ,rhich i-: doe s appear Has taken in an area in which flying saucer sightings h~ve bee n so often reported and that it appears, not superimposeQ on tr.c building or on the ground, but in the sky, uhere one v1ould e::.rcct to see a flying saucer. I still thi11..k the "object" shmm in this picture is the result of some accident during develop~ent, but because of the factors lic J above I am submitting this print for your opinion and for ir...;...:rtion in your files. If you vould like to see the negative as .... ell , please let me kno~., and I ' 11 send it to you. Sincerely, ( omona, California Najar Hector Quintinilla, Jr. Director, U. S . A. F . "Project Blue Book" Air Force Research and Development Command Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Dayton, Ohio Dear ~1ajor Quintinilla: enclosed photograph, containing ivhat appears "unidentified flying object," i s hereby submitted for with other such photographs in y our files. comparison It was taken shortly before 10 A.~l., Wednesday, June 14, 1967, near Landers, California , while the camera was pointed in a northeasterly direction. The camera (a Rolleicord) ivas set a t :fl6 \vi th a shutte r speed of l/250th of a second. A K2 yellow filter r.Tas used to slightly darken the sky s o that the white aome of the building being photographed would stand out more clearly. The film, Kodak Plus-X, was developed in a solution mar~eted commercially as X33C for 12t minutes at a temperature of 70 F . The buildi an "Integratron" or "Time Nachine" constructed by of nea r t Rock. I am of the opinion tha and I ad intended to u s e togra to illustrate a t ongue-in-cheek magazine article about " Time r.1achine " and the Giant Rock area. Th~ee earlier visits t o the site had resulted in unsatisfactory photographs due to the position of the sun or incorrect exposure. All of these earlier visits had be~n ~ade late in the aft ernoon; therefor e , I h a d decide d to see if I couldn ' t get bett er results dur i n g the fourth visit by taking the photographs in the morning. 'Nhen the cnclosea pt-otograph was taken, the camera was mo tad on a tripod. I focu3ed ii;, made the sei;'tings n oted above, and then st d ~:~ f~o~t or it ~d t o one si~e s~ vhat my shadow would protect r.ae .iens f rom t n e direc t gl?~re of the a-..::1. At the moment I tripped the shutte r by puohing r. cc.ule ~elease, I r.vas looking at the lens, not a t +.he object being photographed. At n o time did I actually see the apparent "unidentified flying object" in the pho tpgraph. soon as I inspect~d the film after its development, I noticed a donut-shaped object in the sky above the building' s dome. It 1p~ea~ed to be 3.n undev')iOp.)d snot surrounded by A. clear area. Natu~ally, My first reaction was t o conclude that somehow the developer had failed to reach the!t S:)ot and that tha result ivas a flaw on the negat ive. Perhaps, I thought, that portion of the filr.1 had been touching another spot on the s~e roll as it lay coiled in the 1<:)r o 1 op:n')nt tqnk . But no corresponding fla\o~ appears anywhere else .l~.Jit:Sned to holJ on~ :r:0ll vf 1 20 fil~. Here are some other factors about the situation that seem strange to me: (l) If the white spot is the result of lack of development, what is the explanation for the clear ring (clear on the negative, that is) surrounding it? (2) Instead of being clearly defined around the edges, as might b e expected of a spot caused by chemicals, this spot is fuzzy around the edges, as might be expected in the photograph of an object in motion. (3) I have taken and developed thousands of pictures, and this i s the first time I have seen anything like this on any of them. It is certainly an astounding coincidence that the one picture in which it does appear \-Tas taken in an area in which flying saucer sightings have been so often reported and that it appears, not superimposed on the building or on the ground, but in the sky, where one would expect to see a flying saucer. till think the "object" shmm in this picture is the result of some accident during development, but becaus e of the factors listed above I am submitting this print for your opinion and for insertion in your files. If you \muld like to see the negative af:.. well, please let me know and I 'll send it to you. Sincerely,