전쟁부(DOW)-미확인 이상 현상(UAP)-D098, 미확인 물체의 필름 분석, 1953

This file contains a memorandum relating to the U.S. Naval Photographic Interpretation Center’s assessment of two films allegedly depicting unidentified airborne objects, captured in Montana and Utah in 1950 and 1952, respectively. The file documents the Center’s analytic process, assumptions that constrained its confidence level, tentative conclusions, and recommendations for future research. The Center assessed, generally, that the objects depicted in the film demonstrated characteristics that were inconsistent with those of natural phenomena or commonly known aerospace technologies. The memorandum documents the Center’s recommendation for a more well-resourced investigation to corroborate its presumptive findings, citing a lack of funding and personnel. The accompanying charts compare the film’s luminosity with the apparent angular size of the phenomena, using contemporary mathematical modeling and photogrammetric analysis techniques.

- - -
rmr.n .
I .
-
Authority: €8NFl9ENflAl
BUAER ROUTE SHEET NAVIEJl-111A (Rt¥, 6-5t) I NND C7005 I
RTG. DATE RTG . DATE RTG. DATE I
DIVISION A& C T. AE'CD. AElD. INIT. DIVISIO A& C T. Rl'cCO . l'El[). I IT. DIVISION A~ C T. RECD, RCLIJ} INIT.
'
CHIEf OF BIJAER (AER) AERO. STDS . GP . tAGI .t.SS•T CHIEF FOR ~It
AIRBORN E q}UIP. I ~EI IM.TL. & SERVICES (ti) J..-
a
Al.DE IA I OEP. ASST_ ti-I I[!=
,
GENERAL I SP . !GI l j
: CONTRACTS tC'fl
ASST. RES . TR!. . !SRI ARMA1'1ENT I AR)
SMALL BUS , SP !SBJ
DEPUTY, ASS 1 T CHIEF
OF BURUU ( I ) DESIGN ELE'-'EHTS !DEi
I NOUS"TR I AL PL . I IP)
(XCCUTIY£ OFFICE (1 Z) -
ELECTRON I CS !Ell
I SPECi I t IN I
ADM . SERVICES I ASl MAINTW... NCE I "4A)
EVALUHION IEV,J ,
--
Al RCRAFT LOG (Alf
t::i<;F', F'ROGRA"' tEPl
CO\tNSEl IC◊l F,E\ 1:. , 'VE J RV . ' ·- I
GUIDED MISSILES tGi,o)
-·. '·=
.. "~~ ; PRO.tad / //A
FISC~L IF l l .-.I, ..., //H_L./fl/J
r-l- I 1• •- "✓JI( / -f !J:"J;A ,1 : ... :i·,,,., .. t-L / l , ,~/
, AIRCRAFT I AC l O' 1-1er :L:,:u~ n ,,tl~IC tPHt J ~ /·: J
Mil. REQUIRFM. iMRI -- YES n,.,,-.M--1 , 2,.- / -51':~ /r.
F,,t.,; I I ?5 / t/"' ,:;,;: •
PERSONNEL IP I ?ONER PLI\NT !PP I PRODUCTION I POI /
PUBLICATIONS IPBJ
RESEARCl-i IRSI
PLANS COORD. I PCI SHI PS INSiALL. !SI l SHORE ESTAB. tSEI
ASS 1T CHIEF fOR
RES. & OEVEL. (2)
SUPPLY !SUI
TECHl<ICAL 01\TA ITD)
OEP. ASST . C~!E.r PATENT COUNSE L I PL l
ur,ur:vr •ss1 .
lSW CO~RO. AS $1. USA~ LI ~ISON
RD8-SPEC. ASSf. SPACE FOR ADDIT!OHAL ROUTINGS _j
• D"I~ ISTR•Tl•l ASSJ. \ ~ t...., ..J, '>II ,< 5/J~ t.,.v'Yiu.,,__
\ - f I -
!/[ - 7. 3 I ~/,.,. ~ /. '. f,- r/ V" _;
-,ft- Ji,, 1-l:.1 \
!HG. ACTION DESIRED INIT. RTG . AGT I ON 0[51RED IN IT . RTG . .ACf I 0 DESIRlO I t-llT.'
Expedite Informat ion and return Prepa re repl/ tor slgna,u re of:
2A nour reply reque s ted Re~orun~ndc~Joo a~d re~ur~
-
C~f~.t with Retuf'n with i.J\formation r@q. :,•
y -
•N O fUU(TR'1?"? /: ;
/
~ttE ,SS //•R ,Y
,
✓, 9!; ": :J- -;-
(Sit.a h ,ra}
Id- rJ LC UHIJCR3
...
~~ -"
L Ri,d roo ,nos <itt.,ll Of!- inAdf! and Ch:i!lnged only t>y Co.r'nl . .& q1@& Br. Al rlelthe"1"" rou: l ngs SM1l bu nade in blac:k. I'
,2., lt1dici&te l)rdflr or rou:i.ing ror ootn incMing and outgoint c.o-rresponde1n e by coniSt:(ullve nuo~~rs.
#
.. )( ~ lnd icoit.c~ ci.c11VH)' preptt,ring r-tp. ly. {P1ti:cc n •.RTG & ACT.· coluffif'I , ro tefL or coh1rrwi 1r rumeral a1r·!ady t.n.1er teC1. )
~. 0 - Indicates routing ot l)in'k cop.)' erter correspondeoc.e is "18:lled~ (It numerical sequence Oes,red inc:Hc.at.e to left of coJuin-n.-) - p-
1.11 m.1rner-tca1 r011tlng.s l'IUS.t. ti~ tniL1elled arior to .rml1ing. I
6- Indicate inst.rue? lOf'l$ by placing n1J"1erlc11I rout 11'tOS io a-pc,ropriate tJa)I' 1n ICWter rigt'll na.nd c.orrier.
1. Tnis tore. is UfllC-U,SSJrlEO wnen Dlank arid 'llnAttac.ned.
eeNFIBEN:flA~ SECURITY INFORMATION ~ 8NFIBENfl~i:

COt4FIBENflAL
(Attach Correspondence Here)
COllffKTS
I. In order that persons making cormients may be readily ident ifie<I, comments shal I be numbered, dated, legibly signed with the
Las Name and Initials, Rank if any, Section, and te lephone extension .
2. By o,-der of the Chief of the Bureau, material attached to th is route sheet shall not be removed . tSee AO ?>-II
3. Ext a copies may be removed, but the Record Copy I Identified by the control numberl must remain attached at all times .
ATTACH ADDITIONAL COHHENTS ON LETTER SIZE (8:dOI/ SHEETS ONLY.
NUHBER ALL COHHENTS IN OAT£ ORDER.
CONFIDENTIAL SECURITY INFORMATION CONFIDENflJfcL

U.S. NAVAL PHCYrOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATION CENTER
U. S. NAVAL RECEIVING STATION
-.._ ~ ·- Washington 25, D. C.
MAT <l 1953
Code Ol/IDIW/lbl
Jl2
Serial:
cBJ.~m
SECURITY INFORMATION
From: Off'icer in Charge
To: Director of Naval I ntelligence (OP-322H4D)
Subj: Interpretation of Movies of Unidentified Objects;
progress report on
♦
Ref: (a) Conf ltr DNI OP322Y5/rtm, dtd 27 Oct 1952 with
enclosures thereto
(b) Conf memo, Chief, Topical Division, USAF, AFOIN
2P2., dtd 24 Nov 1952 with enclosures thereto
(c) PIC Conf ltr 01/ml'w/gcl, ser 0263 dtd 5 Dec 1952
(d) Rest memo, Chief, Topical Division, USAF, AFOIN
2A2, dtd 16 Feb 1953
Encl: (1) Charts 2-13
1. Reference (a) is a request from u. s. Air Force for the
i nterpretation of movies of unidentified objects taken in Utah,
2 July 1952. • I ncluded among the enclosures are approximately 30 feet
of processed, 16mm color motion picture film and a list of questions
for gui®nce in ,determining the type o-f analysis desired. Referenc.e
(b) requested interpretation of additional movies taken in Montana,
1950. This report superced.es reference (c) and presents the test
procedures and methods designed to ~nswer the questions contained in
enclosure 7 of reference (a). The results and analysis were performed
by the Photogrammetry Division, Evaluation Department of this Center
and do not necessarily represent the official attitude of the Depart­
ment of the Navy or this Center.
2. Tests and Procedure.
a. Plots.
The film exposed in Ute.his i n very poor condition; dry,
brittle, and With a tendency to break. Af'ter i nitial viewing,
duplication of the film was performed in order to\preserve the frlm.
In the duplication process some color correction ~s made to permit
better Viewing of the objects. To prepare plots of the objects, a
stop crame projector was rigidly mounted at a fiXed distance from a
finel;-groW1d glass screen. The magnification was 22 times giving
a format size of 14.2" wide. This proved very satisfactory and
provided a shadow free image upon which overlay plots could be made.
I
CC>m"~l'UAb
SECURITY INFORMATION

Code 01/ffi-lW / (lt,11
.Jl.2
Serial: r 1 5
()
8 ONFIBBU'flIAf.
SECURITY INFORMATION
Subj: Interpretation of Movies of Unidentifiea Objects; progress
report on
A preliminary detailed studi of the Utah film was made and it was
decided that:
a. Brightly colored spots <;rf red and green lasting only one or
tvo frames were not to be considered.
b- Water spots could be detected easily and eliminated from the
study.
c. The color of the objects was fairly constant as blue-white.
d. Size and luminosity of an object varied through-out the film.
For convenience in interpretation, the film was divided into three
parts, each part being considered an entity. Part I consisted of the
footage taken at f8; Part II, the footage taken at fl6 with a panning
motion; and Part III, the footage taken at fl6 during which the camera
was held steady. Three det'inite groups of l i ghts were observed through­
out the film and plots were recorded as foll ows:
TABLE I
PLOTS OF POSITIONS
Utah Parts Control Chart
I II III Holding to lower group Not enclosed
I II Holding to one object 2 and 3
and ailinuth of another
I Arbitrary 1/2 inch 4
correction per frame
for panning
III Hol ding to frame outline 5a and 5b
I One image held to base 6
line. Every tenth frame
to show changes withih.
apparent formations
Montana
All Terrestial Objects 7a and Tb
-80!ff'fBBff'HA¼,.
SECURITY INFORMATION 2

·code 01/HWW/lbh
J12
n.
r- •
Serial:
IYIAY 4. l 53
GONFIBBN'i'IAL
S:EX::URITY INFORMATION
Subj: Interpretation of Movies of Unidentified Objects;
progress report on
b. Densitometric tests:
Densitometric data vere obtained with a Densichron, Model 2150
manufactured b:r" the Welch Scientific Company. The ~nsichron has a scale
range of 0-3. The procedure was to project each frame at approximately
22 times magnification onto a finely-grained-glass screen. The back­
ground (sky) was then measured at several places and the density set to
3.0 (variations in backgrouud densities were in the order of 0.02 and
were regarded as uniform) . A set of three readings vere made of each
of seven objects in Part I, and of the single object in Part III of
the Utah Film. Readings vere ma.de of the entire Montana film.
Enclosure (8a and 8b) are graphs of the density readings
obtained of the two lower groups of objects in frames 1-129 of the
Utah film. Enclosure (9) is a density graph of the siogle object (94
frames) in Part III. Enclosure (10) is a graph \l'here six successive
Densichron readings were averaged and advanced one reading each deter­
minant.
0£ the Montana film, densities were plotted as above and are
enclosures (11) and (12).
The results of the density readings may be questioned in that
these objects varied in size so that at the minimum sizes the densichron
probe was measuring the entire object, and at the maximum size the probe
was measuring only a portion of the objects. Because of this situation
only the largest readings obtained b scanning the objects were used.
It is understood that normal procedure would be to read the entire object.
This was impossible with the equipment on hand.
In addition the film, with which this investigation was conducted,
is a duplicate of a copy . This raises the question as to whether the
central portion of the objects were burnt out during the duplication
processing. Density readings were made to compare the clear areas and
the objects. It was found-that the minimum difference is o.4. This
indicates that relative luminosity may still be obtained with the pro­
cedwe used. Concurrent with the density readings, relative sizes of
the objects were noted in order to correlate distance and luminosity.
Enclosure (13) is a plot of the same object wherein the relationship of
distance and luminosity can be detected in Utah film,
3. Answers to Questions. ,.
,Answers keyed to the questions contained in enclosure (7) of
reference (a) are hereby presented. They supercede those contained in
reference {c) and present the ~1nal analysis.as requested.
eOifil!BBN'f:EJd;
SECURITY INFORMATION 3

Code 01/HWW/lbh
.n2
n," •
Serial:
'
\
00.ffFIDEft'FIAL
SECURITY IlWORMATION
Subj: Interpretation of Movies of Unidentified Objects;
progress report on
1. Analysis of the graph correlating luminosity and size
indicate that as the luminosity of the objects increase, the size
is larger also. This could be the e:ffect of viewing directly, a
reflecting surf'ace. This is considered not probable becaUQe of
the length of time they were viewed continuously on the film, approxi­
mately 90 seconds, and because of the angle through which they were
photographed, approximately 6o degrees.
It is felt that if these images are reflective surraces,
blinking would occur during a period of 90 seconds while passing
thro~h an angle of 6o degrees when photographed at the rate of
16 frames per second. 'l'his premise would permit highly reflect!ve
balloons or spheroids to be a possibility. However, the velocit:J and
acceleration computations (sub paragraph 8) rule this possibility out.
It appears, there:fore, that if these objects are a reflecting surface,
.., they are o'f a design, speed, and power not commonly known. The vel ocity
and acceleration attributed to the objects may be caused by light
reflected off a highly reflective surface onto an atomospheric screen
where a slight angular turn of the reflective surface would appear as
high acceleration. This possibilit.,· is considered not probable because
of the sun angle and atmospheric condition reported at the time of
photography and because of the variations in luminosity which, under
the above conditions would remain constant.
I
It is the majority opinion of the group conducting this analysis
that these images a.re light sources. This will explain the non-blinking
and variations in luminosity - but not the velocity or acceleration
factors. In either case, light source or reflective surface, it
appears as if the objects are of a nature which ve are not able to
identify in terms of natural phenomena or commonly known me.u-made objects.
2. There is no indication of' what kind of objects could have
caused the images except that they must be of a construction, design,
and material not commonly known . This is indicated by the computed
acceleration rate and elocity (answer 8). For the same reasons, birds,
aircraft and balloons are rul~ out.
3. An analysis of the chart s relative to movement indicate that
there were group and. individ.uaJ. movement. Within a group it appears
as if' the individua.l objects were moving counter-clock-wise al.ong an
elliptical or similar track. Thus vhen two objects crossed the camera
line of sight they will appear to fuse i nto one. As they continued
along their paths it will appear as if one object became two. This
occured at reglar intervals at approximately every 25th :rrame as
plotted in charts 5a and 5b .
CON:PIDBf¥:PI:AL
SECURITY INFORMATION
4

.
·Code 01/HWW/lbh
Jl2
Serial: fl • r •
-''
QQNFB}ENTIAL
SECURITY Th1FORMATION
Subj: Interpretation of Movies of Unidentified Objects;
progress report on
4. All objects appear to have the same characteristics in
regards to shape, color, size and relative motion.
5. The shape of the objects appears to be oblate or disk
shaped, co~or; blue-white, and maximum and minimum size; 98 and 16
f eet. The size is based on the assumption that the objects are five
miles from the observer.
6. Fade i n and fade out of the objects were analyzed ae in
3 above. I n this case the group movement vas such that the distance
between the ob jects and camera was increased so that the objects
could not be recorded on the film thereby causing the apparent fade­
out. Fade-in as attributed to a shortening of the distance from the
.fade-out area to the camera station .
I
7. Plots of the groups indicate that the objects move counter­
clock-wise relative to t he axis of flight path. However, nothing has
been detected which indicates motion of the individual objects about
their own axis al though this motion appears to be likely.
8. In determining the velocity of the objects three assumptions
were ma.de:
a. The camera was held s tea.dy during Part III of the film.
b. The objects were moving perpendicular to the opticeJ.
aY..is, and
c. The objects were five miles from the camera.
It is obvious that (b) is a fallacy; however, this assumption
vill give the minimum velocity and the actual velocity is greater than
computed. The assumption that the objects are five miles from the
camera i s an arbitrary oue. However, based on the emulsion speed and
focal length, an object 50 feet in diameter a nd five miles from the
camera will be recorded on the film with sufficient resolution to
identify major detail s of the object. It is felt that if these objects
were closer than five miles at the time of recording, details would
appear on the film.
Velocity is computed to be 3780 mph for a shift of l mm per :t'rame
1:f the object is five miles from the observer. From 55 measurements
taken from Part III of the Utah film, the maxi mum and minimum velocities
COUFIB-Em?IAL
SECURITY INFORMATION
5 ' U
~:E~Mooavw Da-f;rF@oowr£1'ifa@oo

Code 01/HW/lbh
Jl2
.
'{ 1 ,,. .
Serial: , n
,0.
),
COOF~IAL
SECURITY INFORMATION
Subj: Interpretation of Movies of Unidentified Objects;
progress report on
were 2457 and 378 mph respectively. These figures differ f'rom those
given in reference (c) and were computed f'rom measurements obtained
under more controlled conditions. Acceleration "1