Photo analysis report, Davis, Neil M., published in Stevens' 1982 book, March 1978

NOTE IMPORTANTE
Cet article n'est pas une publication officielle de la FIGU.

DESIGN TECHNOLOGY P.O. BOX 611 POWAY, CALIFORNIA 92064 Preliminary Photo Analysis ========================== Subject 3" X 4,5" color print of UFO submitted for analysis by W.C. Stevens ------- Supporting Information supplied by W.C. Stevens =============================================== Location of scene --- East of Lake Zurich, Switzerland in rolling hills. Nearest town is Hinwil. Date and time --- 3 August 1975 1720 local time. Camera --- Olympus ECR 35 mm, S/N 200519, 42mm focal length Rokker lens. Camera setting --- 1/100 second, F/2.8 Film --- Kodak 18 DIN negative film. Number of Photos taken --- 6 Photographer's estimate of object diameter --- 7 meters. Test results ============ The print was visually examined microscopically to qualitatively evaluate the sharpness of the image of the object and of the scene. There is no discernable difference in image sharpness. Color separation black and white negatives were made at mag- nifications of 1 and 10. The resulting negatives were processed by a scanning microdensitometer yielding density contour plots. Exam- ination of these plots did not reveal any details which would cast doubt upon the authencity of the photograph. The print, color copy negatives, and color separation black and white negatives were carefully examined for evidence of double exposure, photo paste up, model at short range suspended on a string, etc. Nothing was found to indicate a hoax. Exmination of the location of the shadows and highlights in the photograph verifies that the object and the scene was apparantly taken under the same conditions of illumination. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN TECHNOLOGY P.O. BOX 611 POWAY, CALIFORNIA 92064 Many small black specks, apparently caused by dirt on the previous, positive were found on the print. Their presence indicates that this print is either a 2nd generation print from a color negative original or that the original is a positive transparency not a negative as was stated in the supporting data. Conclusion: ----------- Nothing was found in the examination of the print which could cause me to believe that the object in the photos is anything other than a large object photographed a distance from the camera. Recommendations: =============== 1. These results are preliminary and qualitative in nature because of the unknown processing history of the print, and its presumed inferior quality to the original negative. A more detailed, quanti- tative analysis of this photo can only properly be made on the original film. It is most desirable that all 6 photos be examined. It is possible to optically or digitally superimpose the several images of the object resulting in an image with increased ressolution. 2. With the original photo available it should be possible to compute the distance from the camera to the object using the decrease in contrast due to hase at greater distances. To perform this calculation it is necessary to know the distance from the camera to features in the scene such as the near trees and the increasingly distant hills. If it is not possible to obtain these measurements at the site then an aerial photograph or topographic map with those features identified would be needed. Analysis performed by (signature) Neil. M. Davis Physicist 13 March 1978