4f5c5507cfec9d54

28980744.pdf

NARA·NARA_PBB_597821_pdfs-3·pdf·60.8 MB·9 pages

OCR'd text preview (8 of 9 pages)

Source: mistral_ocr · confidence ~95%

page 1
PROJECT 10073 RECORD CARD

|  1. DATE | 2. LOCATION | 12. CONCLUSIONS  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  DR 25 October 1958 | Yucca Valley, California | ☐ Was Balloon ☐ Probably Balloon ☐ Possibly Balloon  |
|  3. DATE-TIME GROUP Local _________ GNT. _________ | 4. TYPE OF OBSERVATION ☑ Ground-Visual ☐ Air-Visual ☐ Ground-Radar ☐ Air-Intercept Radar | ☐ Was Aircraft ☐ Probably Aircraft ☐ Possibly Aircraft  |
|  5. PHOTOS ☑ Yes ☐ No | 6. SOURCE Civilian | ☐ Was Astronomical ☐ Probably Astronomical ☐ Possibly Astronomical  |
|  7. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION 6 seconds | 8. NUMBER OF OBJECTS one | 9. COURSE sta
page 2
SAFIS-3/Maj Tacker; 1/74966/27 Oct 58

27 October 1958

Dear Major Friend:

Mr. [redacted], personally visited the Pentagon on 25 October 1958 and left the inclosed roll of 8 mm film on unidentified flying objects for analysis and identification.

Please see what the film looks like and give me an opinion to forward with the film when I return it to Mr. [redacted].

Sincerely,

LAWRENCE J. TACKER
Major, USAF
Executive Officer
Public Information Division
Office of Information Services

Incl
a/s

Major Robert J. Friend
Air Technical Intelligence Center
Headquarters, Air Materiel Command
Wright-P
page 3
UNCLASSIFIED
Unidentified Flying Object ( )

Classification Cancelled
(see footnote)
Auth: W. W. 6167 D.O.
By: J. H. H. W.
Date: 3 Jan 68

SAFIS-3, Attn: Maj. L. J. Tucker
19 December 1958
AFCIN-4E
1
4E4/Maj Friend/ac/69216/Bldg 828

1. The ATIC had those portions of Mr. [redacted] film containing the so-called UFO enlarged for detailed analysis. The enlargements did not reveal any more detail than did the observations of the projected image or inspection of the film under a microscope.

2. The analysis of the film indicates the object was stationary, yet Mr. [redacted] was not concerned enoug
page 4
DOCUMENT RECEIPT
REGISTRY OR CONTROL NUMBER DATE DISPATCHED

TO:
Mr.
Yucca Valley, Calif

FROM: (Return signed original receipt)
SAFIS,
Office of Information Services
Pentagon
(Maj Lawrence J. Tacker)

Each entry listed below will describe a document and its
inclosures, and will be separated by a horizontal line drawn from
margin to margin. Each entry will include:

1. Description of Basic Material: File number, type (number of
copies and copy numbers), source, addressee, date, subject (short title,
if subject is classified).

2. Number of Indorsements: Number of copies and copy numbers
of eac
page 5
UNCLASSIFIED

5. It is the opinion of the ATIC that this is the photograph of a reflection, probably planned by Mr. H K Zilbert

1 Incl: Film
H. K. GILBERT
Colonel, USAF
APCIN-4E

DISPATCHED
DEC 32 09 04 28

UNCLASSIFIED
2
page 6
JER SHEET UNCLASSIFIED
SUSPENSE
ORIGIN OF BASIC UNCLASSIFIED
DATE
ASSIGNED BY
DATE TYPE NO.
SUBJECT Unidentified Flying Object (Van Tassel)
ROUTING
Initial "IN" column to denote review prior to action. Initial "OUT" column to denote review of completed action. (X for action; √ for coordination.)
|  IN | OFFICE | OUT | IN | OFFICE | OUT | IN | OFFICE | OUT | IN | OFFICE | OUT | IN | OFFICE | OUT  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  OIN-1 |  |  | OIN-2 |  |  | OIN-3 |  |  | OIN-4 |  |  |  | AFOIN |   |
|  OIN-1X |  |  | OIN-2X |  |  | 
page 7
UNCLASSIFIED

5. It is the opinion of the ATIC that this is the photograph of a reflection, probably planned by M.

HK. Y. U. S.
H. K. GILBERT
Colonel, USAF
AFCIN-4E

1 Incl:
Film

DOWNGRADED AT 3 YEAR INTERVALS:
DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS.
DOD DIR 5200.10

UNCLASSIFIED
2
page 8
5 January 1959

Dear Mr. [redacted]:

I am returning herewith the film you submitted to the United States Air Force for evaluation which you thought contained a photograph of an unidentified flying object.

The Air Technical Intelligence Center had those portions of the film containing the so-called unidentified flying object enlarged for detailed analysis. The enlargements did not reveal any more detail than did the observations of the projected image or inspection of the film under a microscope.

The analysis of the film indicates the object was stationary and was photographed for a total ti

Full text and original imagery available on Internet Archive →